Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION TO MEETINGS) BILL (changed from "PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS) BILL")

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(ADMISSION TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS.)

Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to prohibit a committee of a public body from admitting the public to its meetings.—[Mr. Kirk.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The point in the Clause is quite a small one. It seeks to re-enact Section 4 of the 1908 Act, which is repealed by this Bill. Section 4 of that Act reads word for word the same as this Clause, with one change to take account of the change in the scope of the Bill which took place in Standing Committee. Section 4 of the earlier Act reads:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to prohibit a committee of a local authority from admitting representatives of the press to its meetings.
I have simply altered that to read "admitting the public."
It might be thought that this re-enactment is unnecessary, but I am advised that otherwise it might be possible to question the practice of a very large number of councils that do admit the Press—and will, presumably, admit the public—to certain of their committee meetings. I very much hope that the House will agree to include this very small item in the Bill in order to make it abundantly clear that it is legal for

committees to have members of the public present at their meetings should they so desire.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: My only comment on this new Clause is that I am advised that its inclusion is quite unnecessary. The Bill requires a minimum of amendments to be made by local authorities to their standing orders, but there is nothing to prevent them carrying out things in addition to those mentioned in this Measure.
I have one very great objection to including an unnecessary Clause, and that is that it might later have unforeseen effects on the construction of the Bill as a whole if any particular item in it came under adjudication by the courts. That is my only reason for resisting the amendment, but I believe it to be a valid reason, dependent on the construction of the Bill.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1.—(ADMISSION OF PUBLIC TO MEETINGS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER BODIES.)

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out from the first "by" to "exclude" in line 10 and to insert "resolution".
This is a technical, drafting Amendment, and I shall endeavour to give my reasons for putting it forward. As the Clause was originally drafted, there was a requirement that a resolution under this Clause should be passed by a majority of members present. In Committee, the view was expressed that although that requirement was in the 1908 Act it would be better if this resolution was subject to the ordinary rules as they apply to other resolutions of local authorities. An Amendment to that effect was, therefore, moved in Committee, and was accepted. When I looked further into the matter, I had reason to believe that that Amendment did not, in fact, achieve the desired effect.
The rules about ordinary resolutions of local authorities are contained in paragraph 1 of Part V of the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1933. Sub-paragraph (1) contains a provision substantially the same as the present Amendment, but sub-paragraph (2) provides for a case which we did not


consider in Standing Committee. That relates to there being an equal number of votes for and against the resolution. It provides:
In the case of an equality of votes the person presiding at the meeting shall have a second or a casting vote.
I am advised that if we leave the Bill in its present form we shall preclude the provision relating to a second or casting vote. If we pass the Amendment it will have the effect, which I believe was the desired effect as expressed in Standing Committee, of making this provision apply to the resolutions covered by the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end to insert:
(3) A body may under subsection (2) above treat the need to receive or consider recommendations or advice from sources other than members, committees or sub-committees of the body as a special reason why publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest, without regard to the subject or purport of the recommendations or advice; but the making by this subsection of express provision for that case shall not be taken to restrict the generality of subsection (2) above in relation to other cases (including in particular oases where the report of a committee or sub-committee of the body is of a confidential nature).
A number of hon. Members expressed the view in Standing Committee that it may be difficult for officials of a local authority to give advice freely and absolutely unfettered in the presence of the public or of the Press. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government advised that the exclusion provision would permit a local authority to receive advice in private, but I have thought fit to introduce an Amendment to cover the point so that there should be no doubt about it in the minds of local authorities.
The Amendments which were put forward in Standing Committee related specifically to advice from officers of the body. We realised at the time that there might be occasions upon which the body would wish to receive advice from independent consultants whose opinion it had requested but who were not actual officers of the body. The Amendment, therefore, is drafted in wider terms to include occasions of that kind when the body wishes to receive advice from independent consultations.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We are indebted to the hon. Lady for having put down this Amendment. It carries a little further and makes clearer the Amendment which some of us were anxious to make in Standing Committee, and it will relieve anxiety which officials of local authorities have felt about this part of the Bill. I trust, therefore, that the Amendment will commend itself to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end. to insert:
(4) Where a meeting of a body is required by this Act to be open to the public during the proceedings or any part of them, and there is supplied to a member of the public attending the meeting, or in pursuance of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above there is supplied for the benefit of a newspaper, any such copy of the agenda as is mentioned in that paragraph, with or without further statements or particulars for the purpose of indicating the nature of any item included in the agenda, the publication thereby of any defamatory matter contained in the agenda or in the further statements or particulars shall be privileged, unless the publication is proved to be made with malice.
This Amendment arises from an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee to consider the problems which may arise when documents pursuant to the requirements of the Bill are supplied to members of the public or representatives of the Press. As the Bill was originally drafted, there was no provision to protect documents which it was mandatory upon the body to supply by the inclusion of the defence of qualified privilege. The effect of the Amendment is to give a body and its officers a defence of qualified privilege in an action for libel in relation to the publication of defamatory matter, for two reasons—either because they have supplied those documents for the benefit of a newspaper or—and I have added a second reason—because we have now thought fit to include the public within the purview of the Bill.
11.15 a.m.
It is clear that when the public as of right attend meetings of authorities they may well not understand what is going on unless they are supplied with documents which make clear the subject matter under discussion. The chances are, therefore, that the body will think fit to supply those documents, although


it is not imperative that it should do so. I felt that if a body supplies such documents the defence of qualified privilege should be available to that body in so far as it supplies these documents to members of the public attending the meeting.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end to insert:
and to any organisation which is systematically engaged in collecting news for sound or television broadcasts; but nothing in this section shall require a body to permit the taking of photographs of any proceedings, or the use of any means to enable persons not present to see or hear any procedings (whether at the time or later), or the making of any oral report on any proceedings as they take place.
This Amendment is brought forward because I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee that I would consider the position of any B.B.C. or I.T.V. reporters who wished to attend a meeting of a local authority. At the time I expressed the opinion that they would be included as members of the public I think that is correct, but in the Bill as it is at present drafted we have made further arrangements relating to the Press.
The Press is entitled as of right to certain documents. If B.B.C. or I.T.V. reporters attended as members of the public they would not be entitled as of right to those documents, although they might get them. I therefore thought it advisable to equate the position of reporters of the B.B.C. and I.T.V. to that of the Press so that they get the extra facilities which are essential if they are to do their job properly.
I have equally tried to make it clear that these facilities extend only to attending for the purpose of reporting in order that the local authorities may not have any fears whatsoever that they might be liable to have the proceedings actually televised. That, of course, is not envisaged in this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(APPLICATION OF ACT, AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.)

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 10.
This is another technical Amendment, the reason for which is not evident at

first sight. When I came to look further into the question of qualified privilege as it applies to oral statements at meetings of local authorities, I found a case which covered the point for which I had made substantial provision in the original Bill.
It is not essential to put in an extra provision for qualified privilege in order that a body may claim it. It may claim it in respect of oral statements at meetings of the body, even though third parties are present, by virtue of the common law as decided in Pittard v. Oliver in 1891, reported in 1 Queen's Bench, at page 474.
In that case, which applied to a board of guardians, there were members of the public present at a meeting of the board of guardians. During the course of that meeting one of the members of the board made certain defamatory statements about the accounts as presented by the clerk to the board. The clerk sued the member of the board who had made those statements, and it was held that the privilege which would have attached to the statements if made in the presence of guardians only was not taken away by the presence at the meeting of reporters or persons other than guardians. That, therefore, is the present law without any provision in the Bill.
I am advised that, if we put in a special provision covering something which is already dealt with by the law, it might throw doubt on the construction of other Acts of Parliament. For that reason, I ask the House to accept the Amendment to delete the appropriate words.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am a little concerned about this Amendment. As I followed the argument, the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) says that the words which it is proposed to leave out are not necessary because they would do no more than put into a Statute what is already in the common law. She quoted a case where a board of guardians was concerned. Can we be certain that a decision given in a case affecting a board of guardians will be regarded as the law applying to all bodies mentioned in the Bill? That seems to be one doubtful point.
Secondly, even if the position at common law would cover all the bodies


mentioned in the Bill, do we do any harm by making statutory what already exists at common law? The hon. Lady says that to do so might throw doubt on the interpretation of other Statutes, but I am not sure that I follow that. If the decision in the case which she quoted is to be regarded as part of the law of the land, surely it is not altered by the insertion of these words in the Bill.
As I see it at the moment, the addition of these words makes the position of people attending meetings of the bodies mentioned in the Bill entirely satisfactory and beyond any doubt, and it does no damage to anyone. I should have thought that it would be desirable to provide that safeguard. I wonder whether a Member of the Government can give us some advice on the matter.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I am, I think, in a position to give the assurance for which the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asks. The decision in the case of the board of guardians was in terms general enough, I understand, to cover a far wider range than that. I am advised that, if we specifically mention this protection in the cases limited to this Bill, we should, perhaps inadvertently, throw doubt on what is a general right, and this may go beyond even the bodies covered by the Bill. I urge the House to leave the law as it now stands, without intervening in this way.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am rather interested in this. Could the Parliamentary Secretary or the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) give us authority for what is, to me, a novel principle of interpretation?
One has a decision of the courts. That has been applied, because its terms are wide, to other bodies. One then, in a Measure such as this, gives statutory declaration to an existing practice. What is the principle of interpretation which says that, because at a certain point one gives statutory declaration to an existing practice, one somehow, for some reason, throws doubt upon that very practice where it applies elsewhere? This seems to be a quite novel proposition.
I feel that the law is difficult enough to find already, particularly where one

is dealing with cases of rather small bodies which cannot, perhaps, always have easy access to advice and the law libraries. Paragraphs in Acts of Parliament which have to be worked with which are merely declaratory can tell people what the law is and provide the easiest way to find it. For that reason, I think there is something to commend them.

Mrs. Thatcher: By leave of the House, may I add a few further comments? One does, perhaps, learn by experience that it is better to mention the authority in the House without mentioning the facts of the case upon which the ratio depends. The ratio of the case I quoted was, of course, that where qualified privilege exists by virtue of a duty in the person who makes the statements to make those statements and a duty in the person who receives those statements to receive them, the privilege is not taken away by the presence of members of the public unless they are called in specially to hear the defamatory statements.
As regards the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), there is not, of course, a specific authority for this provision. My difficulty is that I have already had sufficient trouble with what may happen if this Bill becomes an Act, and I do not want to be accused of having introduced something which affects the construction of other Acts of Parliament.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that, when one is construing a provision in the court, one matter which comes up frequently for consideration is this. When there is a general provision in the law already and one then finds an additional enactment declaring that general provision, in a boundary case a doubt may be raised and it may be said, "If Parliament had intended the law to apply in other cases, would it not in a boundary case have made a specific provision?".
The hon. and learned Gentleman is far more conversant with these matters than I am. I am advised that it would be better to leave the words out. I can do no more than say that. If the House wishes to put them in, that is a matter for the House, but I am a little against putting in surplus words where the law is clear without them.

Mr. F. P. Bishop: There must, I suggest, be an element of common sense in this matter of interpretation. Is there not another danger, apart from any effect upon the interpretation of other Statutes? Subsection (2) as it now stands reads:
a person publishing any defamatory matter at a meeting while it is required by this Act to be open to the public"—
and so forth. The public may be at a meeting of the same kind at a time when the Bill does not require that they shall be permitted to be there; they may be there simply by the permission of the authority or body concerned. It seems to me, as a matter of common sense, that the words of the Bill as they stand would cast doubt upon the position when members of the public were present not specifically by virtue of the Bill. For that reason, if for no other, I suggest that it would be better to accept the Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a final word on this matter. We really are a little doubtful about it. We do not want to make difficulties at this stage of the Bill. Will the hon. Lady give an undertaking that she will pursue the matter further with the object, should it prove desirable, of arranging that another place should put the words back? We would be willing to accept the Amendment if the hon. Lady would give an undertaking that she will take further advice and, if matters stand as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) thinks they stand, will endeavour to get another place to put those words back.

11.30 a.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am quite happy to give that undertaking. It is news to me that I could have such an effect upon another place, but I will do my best.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out from "of" to the end of line 31 and to add:
June, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.
In Committee, I gave an undertaking that I would reconsider the date for coming into force of the Bill in the event of it becoming an Act. It is urged upon me that, as we had changed certain

principles of the Bill, it would be advisable to delay the operation, at any rate for some months. It was suggested that the appropriate time would be immediately after local authority elections, as a number of authorities may wish to make changes in their standing orders. They are not the only authorities concerned in the Bill, but they will be affected in greatest measure. I therefore think that the most fitting date for coming into force of the Act would be immediately after the local elections of next year.

Mr. Kirk: I wonder whether my hon. Friend could consider this matter a little further between now and when the Bill reaches another place, to see whether the influence which she has that place might be used on this matter. Obviously, the date in the Bill, 1st September, is wholly unrealistic. It would not be possible for all the necessary arrangements to be made.
On the other hand, I cannot help but feel that twelve months, which would be the effect of the Amendment, is rather long. Certain authorities will have to change their standing orders, but it is news to me that they can do that only after local elections. I sat, although for only a short time, on a local authority, and, if necessary, we could change our standing orders at any time. I cannot see why it is necessary to wait as long as is proposed, although I agree that some Amendment would have to be made because 1st September is unrealistic.
Although I do not intend to press the matter to a Division, I hope very much that my hon. Friend will consider possibly 1st January or 1st March as more suitable dates than 1st June.

Mr. Albert Evans: I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk). If the Bill comes into force after the next local elections, it will operate at various times in various parts of the country. There will be local elections early next year, in March and April, in certain parts, and local elections in other parts in the autumn. If the Amendment is passed, the Bill will operate in one part at one time and in another part at another time, as I understand.

Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps difficulty has arisen because of the way in which I moved the Amendment. The Amendment is that the Bill should come into operation on 1st June, 1961. The reason for the Amendment is that that is a date by which most local elections would have occurred.

Sir Robert Grimston: I am sorry that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk), but I very much hope that 1st June will be accepted, particularly for the convenience of a number of small local authorities which have been used to having a general purposes committee of all the members of the council. It will be convenient if they have a little time to adjust themselves and if that time is extended over the next local council elections. It would make only a matter of a few months' difference, and for that reason I hope that the House will accept the date of 1st June.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Since the Committee stage, the larger local authorities have given this matter a great deal of consideration. It seems that they are quite unanimous that 1st June is about right. All the elections will be over by then. Even in places where there are no elections, such as in London, the committees for the following year will have been selected. I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I, too, hope that the House will accept the Amendment. Not only the standing orders of local authorities are involved. Those of us who were members of the Standing Committee will know that we spent a lot of time discussing how some local authorities will make the arrangements which the provisions of the Bill require. Some local authorities will require a lot of time to make the necessary accommodation available. The Amendment proposes a reasonable date, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Sir K. Joseph: I very much hope that the House will accept the Amendment. In addition to the reasons given, I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposes to discuss with local authority associations a code

of conduct, which they will want time to consider and which must take a little time to prepare. My right hon. Friend would not like to impose on local authorities a need to consider two alterations—one for bringing in the Bill and another at a later date when the code has been published. I hope that they will be able to do both at the same time.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I am sorry that it is proposed that the coming into operation of the Bill should be postponed for such a long time. I had hoped that it would be in operation very much earlier. I am sorry that it cannot be brought into operation within the next month or so, because we have had some bad examples recently of things being done by local authorities which this Bill will stop them doing.
For instance, St. Pancras Borough Council has decided to keep the public out of its meetings for the next three months. We have been told that the actions of Conservative-controlled councils and quite a lot of Labour-controlled authorities made it necessary to introduce a Bill of the kind presented to us on Second Reading. Now, a Conservative-controlled authority has decided that it will keep the public out of its meetings for the next three months. I am, therefore, sorry that the Bill, when it has received the Royal Assent, will not come into operation sooner in order to make that council reconsider its decision. I am disappointed, but, as we are in a position where it is physically impossible to do that, reluctantly I will have to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule.—(BODIES TO WHICH THIS ACT APPLIES.)

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that it might be for the convenience of the House if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), in page 4, line 35, to leave out:
or to advise an the discharge of 
were discussed with that in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. R. Jenkins), in page 4, line 8. I will call the second Amendment if it is required for decision of the House.

Mr. William Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out:
or advise on the discharge of".
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will be able to accept the Amendment. Joint advisory committees appointed by two or more local authorities cannot reach any executive decision without submitting their reports and recommendations to each of the constituent bodies. The operative decision about whether a certain line of action should be followed can be made only by the constituent bodies themselves and any discussion which this involves will take place in the constituent bodies.
There seems to be no reason why either the public or the Press should be admitted to meetings of bodies of this kind. As the Bill is drafted, it would catch joint committees which are appointed by two or more local authorities to discuss, perhaps, the preliminary stages to be taken in connection with the provision of a service and in which one of them should take the initiative. These are not the sort of things which should be made public. They are often of the nature of preliminary negotiations.
The next point is that where consultation is taking place, and advice is to be given to the constituent bodies, when preliminary talks are taking place it is obviously not necessary or even desirable for the Press or public to be present at those embryonic stages. In any event, the results of their advice will go back to (he two or more constituent bodies, which then come within the ambit of the Bill.
I have been asked strongly to press this matter. Under the Bill, serious inconvenience could be caused in the running of a body of this kind, which is merely of an advisory character, which has no functions whatever and whose decisions will come to the light of day in the normal course. I am advised that difficulties would be created in local government when these committees were set up. With this explanation of the reasons for my Amendment, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), in the interests of local government throughout the country and of

assisting the working of the Bill, will find herself able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. W. Hamilton: I wish to put a similar case on behalf of Scotland, where similar arguments apply. I understand that the Scottish Office has no feelings about the matter and is prepared to accept the Amendment. I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) would not want to do anything to offend Scotland, otherwise she might have some of the treatment that Ministers have had in recent weeks. I very much hope that she will accept my Amendment in line 35, on behalf of the Scottish local authorities.

Mrs. Thatcher: I certainly would not want to do anything to offend Scotland. It was with trepidation that I included Scotland within the purview of the Bill at all, particularly when I read that on an earlier Bill an English Member had objected to the inclusion of Scotland on the ground that it would increase the loquacity of the Scots in their local authority committees. The more things change, the more they are the same.
I have an open mind on the Amendment. I inquired about the kind of functions which these committees performed and was told that frequently the purpose of such committees is to co-ordinate the actions of several authorities. There may be matters—for example, relating to National Parks— which concern a piece of land which is within the area of different local authorities comprised by the park. In an instance of that sort, any discussion of the future of such a National Park would seem to be of great interest to the public and to the Press. It may be that such matters as seashore coastal defences come within the purview of two different local authorities but have to be treated as a natural geographical unit.
11.45 a.m.
As the Bill was drafted, it was meant to cover committees which exercised delegated functions. Now the principle has been altered to those committees which consist of the whole of the members with a view to getting maximum discussion in public. If maximum discussion in public is the principle, subject to certain safeguards, it might be a gesture on the part of


those who wish to get as much public information as possible over to the public to consider leaving in the words which it is now sought to delete. It would not do harm to leave them in, because the committees concerned have abundant safeguards in that they could exclude Press and public when confidential matters were being discussed. I am entirely in the hands of the House on this matter, but we should make it clear that we want maximum discussion in public.

Mr. M. Stewart: The House would be well advised to accept the Amendment, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton). The matters to which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has just referred are matters which will come up for public discussion in the bodies which have appointed the joint committees. By the Amendment, we should not be doing anything to cause decisions that should be discussed and taken in public to be taken in private with the public or Press improperly excluded. As the hon. Member for Dulwich said, we should be protecting negotiations in their embryonic stage. In the interests of good administration, that is a right thing to do.
There are some steps in the making of policy that cannot be so well done in full view of unlimited publicity as they can be done by private discussion. Acceptance of the Amendment would bring no risk of any hiding of vital matters or decisions from either the Press or the public. We should, therefore, pay proper attention to the needs of local authorities, both in England and in Scotland, and accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West and of the hon. Member for Dulwich and make the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I should like help from the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). It is possible for his Amendment in page 4, line 12, to leave out from "Council" to "and" in line 13, to be discussed with the following one in line 13, if that is sufficient for him. If, however, the hon. Member wants to go as far as taking a decision of the House, that course cannot be adopted.

Does the hon. Member agree with my suggestion?

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Mr. Robert Jenkins indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member indicates his assent to my suggestion. Therefore, I call the following Amendment, in line 13, and indicate that the subject matter of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dulwich in line 12 may be discussed with it.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after "councils", to insert:
 in boroughs which are separate police areas,".
This is a somewhat technical Amendment as I have drafted it. The Schedule includes within the operation of the Bill several authorities which are statutory police authorites. These are, as stated in paragraph 1 (a) of the Schedule, standing joint committees, combined police authorities constituted under the Police Act, 1946, and watch committees of borough councils.
The watch committees of borough councils have had a history dependent upon the police force which they were formed to control. The standing joint committee is a statutory authority for the county police force. The watch committees were originally the statutory authorities for borough police forces. By virtue of the Police Act, 1946, a number of boroughs lost their statutory police forces and their function were carried out by the county forces. The county boroughs still retain their police forces, and certain very large boroughs are still treated as county boroughs for police purposes only, although they are not treated as county boroughs for other purposes.
Those authorities are defined in a Section of the Police Act, which says that if the population of a borough exceeds half the population of the administrative county authority it is, in fact, treated as a county borough for police purposes, and its watch committee is a statutory authority for police purposes.
We are, therefore, in a position where we have two kinds of watch committees, those which, like a standing joint committee, are the statutory authority for police purposes, and those of the ordinary boroughs, not county boroughs and


not county boroughs for police purposes, which still have a watch committee although they have lost their police forces. Those boroughs which have watch committees but no police forces exercise residuary functions such as house-to-house collections in the areas which they serve, but they are no longer the statutory police authority.
This Amendment is designed so that those watch committees which are statutory police authorities should, in accordance with the rest of this paragraph of the Schedule, be within the meaning of the Bill and subject to its provisions.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I am sure the House will be more than grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) for moving the Amendment, but, quite frankly, the local authorities throughout the country, especially the larger ones, the boroughs in particular, do not feel satisfied that the Amendment goes far enough. I should like shortly to give the House some facts on the whole question of watch committees, the different types of those committees.
The House will remember that watch committees of borough councils are appointed under the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which provides that a council shall from time to time appoint a sufficient number, not exceeding one-third of the body, who, with the mayor, shall be the watch committee. By the Police Act, 1946, a watch committee, the police authority in relation to county boroughs, where the county forms part of a combined police authority, is at present appointed by the county boroughs and is a statutory police authority. Those committees are the police authorities for their respective boroughs.
Watch committees may also be, and in a number of cases still are, appointed by county boroughs which are not statutory police areas, and it is this type which are not police authorities. Watch committees which are police authorities are given certain functions by Statute, and may, in addition, exercise functions on behalf of the council under powers delegated by the council; but watch committees which are not police authorities exercise only those functions which are given to them by the council.
There seems, in my opinion, no justification for treating the latter type of committee in any different way from any other standing committee appointed by local authorities. It is gratifying to me, I say again, that my hon. Friend has gone some way to meeting the objections of the main local authorities.
However, I suggest that in administrative counties it is the chief constable and not the standing joint committee who is the disciplinary authority. In boroughs having statutory police forces the position is reversed and the watch committee is the disciplinary body. This means that much more business which is done of a personal nature is dealt with by watch committees than by standing joint committees, because, I repeat, the chief constable himself is responsible for that administration.
This type of business is generally accepted as being unsuitable for public discussion. The work of the watch committee in those circumstances would be, as it is in the case of the chief constable, personnel, their appointment, promotion, dismissal, and matters of discipline; the state of crime in the area; or any measures needed to deal with the current situation; or premises, equipment, general administrative matters concerning the police.
As to the first of these, personnel matters, they could be dealt with in private under the Bill, where they concern the police or ordinary administrative staffs of local authorities. As to the state of crime in an area, it is manifestly of the highest importance that this should be discussed in private. It would be impossible to discuss this subject in the presence of members of the public who might include criminals who would be glad to know the information being discussed in the committee.
As to the ordinary matters of premises and equipment and administration, these usually involve expenditure, and the watch committee is in precisely the same position as any other committee of the local authority and would have to get the consent of the council itself to that expenditure. Therefore, the opportunity for discussion of those matters in open council with the Press and public present would be available.
If my Amendment is not accepted, the watch committee will undoubtedly find it necessary in the public interest to exclude the Press and the public from its meetings when it is dealing with the first and second classes of business I have referred to, that is, personnel, discipline, dismissal, promotion, and the state of crime. Any major items which come within the third class of business would normally be submitted for the approval of the council. I suggest, therefore, that there seems to be no reason for including watch committees among the bodies to whom the Bill will apply.
There is one general point I would make. I think that it would be a serious thing for the country and local government in particular if a Bill were passed by the House which would have the effect of making a local authority take appropriate action to exclude the members of the public, which they may do under the Bill. It would be a bad thing that local authorities should find themselves continually having closed sessions merely because there was no provision in the Bill to enable them to have them by right of Statute.
It is quite clear, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley will be alerted to the point, that discipline and other things of that kind, such as promotion, cannot be discussed with the Press and public present. It is quite clear that crime cannot, in those circumstances, be discussed. It is quite clear, as to the third class of business, that all those items will go eventually to the council for open discussion. Therefore, I should have thought that it would be wise in the interests of making the Bill work to provide that watch committees are excluded from its scope.

12 noon.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) seems to have made a most convincing case for the Amendment which he has agreed not to move. I am the more disappointed at his agreement, because I thought that today I should be able for once to support the hon. Member.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: On a point of order. Did I in fact, Mr. Speaker, say that I was not moving my Amendment? With great respect, I thought that you

were asking me to agree to have my Amendment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) taken jointly and that after joint discussion I was to move my Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry if the hon. Member misunderstood. Being aware of the difficulties which would arise if I went on to the Amendment of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), I indicated in terms to the hon. Gentleman that if he wanted the decision of the House on his Amendment I should not be able to take the course I was suggesting and for that purpose I invited the hon. Gentleman's help. He did not say anything, but he indicated assent by nodding and I referred to that verbally to get the nodding on the record as it were.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: On a point of order. I was not aware of the point that you were putting, Mr. Speaker. I thought that you said that you wanted my assistance in the sense of my agreement that the two Amendments should be taken together. When you called my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) I rather thought that you were calling her first and me second to move my Amendment, although the two Amendments were not on the Notice Paper in that order. Is there any way that we can go back on the Notice Paper so that the decision of the House can be taken on my Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will forgive me, I should like to tidy up this point and, therefore, continue to interrupt him. I do not see any way of doing what the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) asked me to do, unless —and I am not in any sense putting any pressure on anybody—after discussion, it turned out that the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was prepared to withdraw her Amendment. In that way we could get back, but I see no other.

Mr. Victor Yates: Further to that point of order. All this is very regrettable, because I gathered the same impression as did the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). I understood that the two Amendments were being taken together


and that we should be able to vote on both of them. What could have been the alternative to that? Does it mean that if the hon. Member for Dulwich made a mistake, owing to a misunderstanding which must have been shared by other hon. Members, it cannot be rectified?

Mr. Speaker: I am extremely sorry to cause any misunderstanding in the mind of anybody at all, but I hope greatly that when hon. Members look at the OFFICIAL REPORT they will see that the words which I used made the position quite plain. I am afraid that I cannot help that there has been a misunderstanding. It is very difficult to listen carefully to every word uttered here, but I think that I used words which made it quite plain. There is no way back, as far as I can see, except the one that I indicated.

Mr. Jenkins: Owing to an error of mine, as I see now, for which I apologise, my Amendment cannot be taken unless my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley withdraws her Amendment. May I ask whether, in the event of that not happening but of my hon. Friend's Amendment being defeated, my Amendment could then be taken?

Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid not.

Mr. M. Stewart: Further to that point of order. It may have been a defect of understanding on our part, but I believe that most hon. Members had the same impression as the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) had—that it would be still within our power to give an expression of opinion on his Amendment. Is it really the case that the only way we can do that is by the withdrawal of the earlier Amendment? If that is so, I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will see her way to do it. This is a matter on which a number of hon. Members feel strongly and it might affect their attitude to the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Kirk: My recollection of what you said, Mr. Speaker, was as you later described it and not as it was recalled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). If my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) withdraws her Amendment, is

it possible for her to move it afterwards? Some of us would prefer her Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. That is a possible course. In again expressing regret at having somehow procured a misunderstanding, I would add that if hon. Members read the Notice Paper they will see that what they had in mind was impossible. The two Amendments relate to successive lines.

Mrs. Thatcher: The only thing that I have been clear about, Mr. Speaker, was what you said first. I am in a fog about what has happened since. Is it possible, if I withdraw my Amendment now, for me to move it again after my hon. Friend's Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: The matter would be governed, of course, by the decision of the House on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich but, subject to that matter, if the hon. Lady withdraws her Amendment now she will be able to move it thereafter.

Mrs. Thatcher: Do I understand that in the event of my withdrawing my Amendment, discussion on it can take place simultaneously with Chat on the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, although the actual formal moving takes place afterwards? Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite correct. I am obliged to the hon. Lady. That would be the position.

Mrs. Thatcher: In that event, with the consent of the House and in the hope that I may have leave to move it later, depending on the vote on my hon. Friend's Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out from "Council" to "and" in line 13.

Mr. Speaker: I have intimated that with this Amendment may be discussed the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley, in page 4, line 13, after "councils," to insert:
in boroughs which are separate police areas.

Mr. Ede: You asked me to forgive you, Mr. Speaker. As I always pray that my transgressions may be forgiven as I forgive other people, although I did not recognise any need for your plea to me, if it will give you any peace of mind, I will. I was in no doubt about what your Ruling had been, as I made clear in the very first words that I uttered when I rose previously.
I was the Minister who presented the Police Act, 1946, to the House. Although that is now some time ago, my recollection is that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in page 4, line 13, would apply only to two boroughs—Peterborough and Cambridge. Let us be quite clear on that. The only two boroughs which satisfied the condition that their population exceeded one-half of the administrative county were Peterborough, which had more than half the population of the Soke of Peterborough, and Cambridge which had more than half the population of Cambridgeshire.
I understand that recommendations have now been made by which Cambridge will become a county borough. Therefore, that might reduce this matter merely to the position of Peterborough in the new county of Bedfordshire, of which it certainly would not have more than half the population. Therefore, as far as one can see, the Amendment eventually—in the course of two or three years—would achieve exactly nothing.
I support the speech made by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins. I think that to give the Press unlimited rights in respect of watch committees would make the administration of the police in county boroughs even more difficult than it is now. I cannot think that the Press ought to have the right to hear the deliberations of a watch committee on the internal discipline of a police force. Although, personally, I dislike standing joint committees as such, I prefer the arrangements for police discipline in counties to those in boroughs, for I think that in a disciplined force the discipline should be in the hands of the chief officer.
Having served on a standing joint committee for a great many years, I know the advantages that accrue from

the chief constable being the source of discipline in counties. If he makes a mistake, or—what is, I think, more often the case—if a member of his force thinks he has made a mistake, there is an appeal on his decision to the Secretary of State, when an inquiry, generally by a barrister and an inspector of constabulary, deals with the matter.
I would hope that at some time in the future discipline in county borough forces may be brought on to the same lines, but while matters concerning the discipline and promotion of a police force are within the competence of the watch committee it would be highly undesirable that the Press should have the right of access to meetings where those matters are discussed. Where the issue is whether P.C. 37 or P.C. 479 shall be appointed to the vacancy for a sergeant and presumably—I have never attended a watch committee meeting—arguments for and against on that delicate issue are being advanced, it is extremely undesirable that a public discussion should take place.
There are occasions when matters not quite as positive between two members of the force are discussed where it must be highly detrimental to the future work of the force in a county borough. Suggestions may have been made by a member of the watch committee and put to the chief constable, such as that he has no confidence in the competence of a certain constable, sergeant, inspector or superintendent. If that sort of thing is to be ventilated in public it must, clearly, make the work of the police force in the area very much more difficult than it is at the moment.
For these reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Dulwich, having secured the initiative once again, will persist in his Amendment, for I can think of nothing more detrimental to forces in county boroughs, particularly in these difficult times when all sorts of people imagine they have grievances against the forces, than it being competent for the Press to attend meetings where the conduct and discipline of forces are being considered. That does not mean that when any misconduct occurs in the force it should be hushed up, but it should not in its early stages be given the kind of publicity which the Bill at present might give it.

12.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I hope that it may be of some help to the House if I attempt to give advice on these two Amendments. I am all the more impelled to do so because I find, I think for the first time in two and a half years, that I have to correct the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on a point of interpretation in relation to the Home Office.
The Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), which applies to all watch committees which are not police authorities, is applicable not merely to Peterborough and Cambridge. I happen to know the position in Peterborough and Cambridge because my constituency lies right between the two cities. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct about those two places.
But there are, I understand, borough councils which, although they are not police authorities, have watch committees. That is the case where, for example, there is a combined police authority, a borough and a county having got together, or having been put together, to form one police authority which is called a combined police authority. But in those cases the boroughs have retained their watch committees. They are not police authorities, and the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley would apply to them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my making that correction.

Mr. Ede: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. Of course, many places which have never been police authorities appoint bodies which they call watch committees.

Mr. Renton: Yes, that is so. They are not obliged to appoint such committees, but it pleases them to do so, and it is sometimes a useful thing to do.
The two Amendments raise most interesting points of police authority organisation. As the Bill stands at the moment, all police authorities, whatever character they have, would be covered by the terms of the Bill so that the Press would be admitted, subject to the right of exclusion, to such meetings. The Amendment in the name of my hon.

Friend the Member for Finchley would, of course, upset that broad application of the Bill to all police authorities by excluding watch committees.

Mrs. Thatcher: No.

Mr. Renton: I am sorry. I mean the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). I certainly do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to add to the confusion that we have already had this morning.
The Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich would disturb that broad principle that all police authorities are covered by the Bill by seeking to exclude watch committees. My hon. Friend put his Amendment forward, rather strangely I thought, not so much on the ground that watch committees could be said to be committees of local authorities but on the ground that they have particular powers dealing with appointments, promotion and so on which other police authorities do not have.
For the sake of the record and so that the House may be fully seized of the actual position, I think I should deal with both of those possible arguments. It is true that watch committees are appointed by local authorities and that they are called "committees," and in a nominal sense—but a nominal sense only—they are committees of local authorities. But they are police authorities in their own right. The legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for South Shields made that quite clear.
Let us be quite clear in our own minds that if we are to deal with them in this Bill, we ought to deal with them, not on the footing that they are committees of local authorities, but should deal with them on the footing that they are police authorities. Therefore, my advice to the House on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich is this. Quite candidly, from the Home Office point of view, we have no very strong feelings either way as to whether all police authorities should be subject to the Bill or no police authorities should be subject to it, but we do say that all police authorities should be treated by the Bill in the same way.
If the House were to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, we would feel obliged to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley to use her best endeavours to secure that, in a later stage of the Bill in another place, and for the sake of the necessary consistency, and rather than avoid a conflict between the two Houses of Parliament, she should have an Amendment moved to strike other police authorities out of the Bill; namely, standing joint committees and combined police authorities. That is my advice to the House, and, in the light of that advice, the House may take whatever decision it thinks fit.
I should add one or two matters which are relevant. The first is that in Scotland police authorities are quite different. In Scotland, police authorities are quite truly committees of local authorities. They have in the fullest sense all the dual functions that our watch committees do not have. The Bill, of course, applies to local authorities in Scotland in just the same way as it applies in England and Wales, and, therefore, the House may wish to bear in mind when it is legislating that there is this strange difference between, on the one hand, England and Wales, where the police authorities are completely autonomous, and, on the other hand, in Scotland, where they are committees of the local authorities; and, of course, we have excluded the committees of local authorities from the Bill.
Another thing which I think is most relevant, and which answers or at any rate deals with the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, is this. It deals with the real argument which he advanced in favour of his Amendment, to which I referred briefly earlier. It is true that watch committees have certain powers, with which the House is familiar and which have been mentioned this morning, which other police authorities do not have, but we must realistically face the fact that it is not only watch committees in the exercise of these powers, but all police authorities in the exercise of a great many of their powers, that will find it necessary to use the right of exclusion rather frequently, and certainly very much more frequently than one would expect local authorities to do. I

am very glad to see the right hon. Member for South Shields nodding, because it is right that I should try to carry right hon. and hon. Members with me on this matter.
It is not merely a question of personnel, appointments, promotion and discipline matters which may have to be taken, as they are at present, in private by watch committees, but for all police authorities there are matters concerned with the disposition of the police force for the fighting of crime, and there is no point in playing into the hands of the criminals by allowing the Press to attend. The House may wish to bear that factor in mind when deciding whether or not we should move towards a position in which all police authorities are included in the Bill or all police authorities are excluded from it.
Then, of course, police authorities, like other public bodies mentioned in the Second Schedule, will sometimes have to consider the purchase of land and buildings, and, in order that speculators may not get foreknowledge of what might happen, they may well be in the position of having to exclude the Press. I think there may be very good nominal reasons and reserve powers given to the public at large by our providing that police authorities shall admit the Press and the public, and it is only right to point out at this fairly early stage that it will be essentially a reserve power and that in practice on very many occasions the power of exclusion will have to be exercised.

Mr. Wilkins: I want to express surprise that we did not have this explanation given to us during the Committee stage of the Bill. What I want to ask the Minister is this. As I try to understand his argument, it is that whatever we do, the Home Office has no very strong feelings about it in this matter, but that, whatever we do, the Home Office wants us to be consistent.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has also said that this Bill will also apply to Scotland and went on to explain in some detail that police authorities in Scotland are not only police authorities but also local authority committees, which would be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
If, therefore, he is suggesting to the House that it ought to be consistent in


this matter, do I presume that his argument is that we ought to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), because, otherwise, there would be inconsistency in the application of the Bill as between Scotland and England and Wales?

Mr. Renton: No, it is essentially a matter in which the Government, for the reasons which I have given, should not do more than point out the results of accepting or not accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is a matter which we have all along felt can properly be left to the decision of the House, and it is right that I should point out to the House the results either way of its decision. As to the distinction between England and Scotland that arises, all I can say is that it will not be the first or the only remaining distinction. We often have to legislate in a different way for the two countries. My father was a Scotsman, and I have always respected—

Mr. Ede: That accounts for it.

Mr. Renton: I do not know what that accounts for, but these mixed marriages sometimes produce strange results. I do not think that should deflect us from the position in England, which is the only one for which I can answer. Having pointed out the distinction, we do most seriously think that we should have consistency. You may, Mr. Speaker, think it right that I should say that it does not very much matter one way or another which way the House does decide, so long as there is consistency, because, as I have attempted to explain, if the Press and public are admitted, the power of exclusion will have to be so wide that, in fact, there will be very little difference in practice, whichever decision the House takes.
Nevertheless, there are those occasions when it might be useful from the public's point of view that there should be this fundamental right for the public to be admitted, subject to the power of exclusion.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: May I say a word before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down? He has told us that it does not matter which way the House decides, and he leaves it very much to the House. Then he spent

a lot of time giving us the objections to the present position and, in effect, speaking in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). Having said that it does not matter and could be left to the House, does he not think that he should give some arguments for leaving the Schedule as it is? He has given us a rather onesided point of view. I have an open mind on the subject, but I think that he should spend a little time giving us the arguments in favour of allowing the Press and public into meetings of watch committees, because as yet I am not able to make up my mind.

Mr. Renton: I hope that I shall not be thought to be making a second speech, because I had in fact sat down, but the hon. Member prefaced his intervention by saying, "Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down." There is a distinction between the position which arises on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). For obvious, technical reasons, my advice to the House would have been to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley if it had not been withdrawn. No doubt the Government spokesman in another place, if the opportunity arises, will give the advice which I would have been prepared to tender to the House this morning.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that in clearing up the understanding the hon. and learned Gentleman missed my saying that the Amendment at present withdrawn may in fact be discussed with the current Amendment.

Mr. Renton: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it may be discussed, but it seemed to me that the discussion was likely to be academic because, the Amendment having been withdrawn, it could not be made.

Mr. Kirk: I raised this issue before. The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), having withdrawn her Amendment, is at liberty to move it again if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dulwich falls by the wayside. Is not that correct?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the


slightest misunderstanding. We are at present discussing the Amendment in page 4, line 12. I have said that at the same time we may discuss the Amendment in page 4, line 13. If the Amendment to line 12 succeeds, the next Amendment will fall. If the Amendment to line 12 falls, then the hon. Lady is at liberty to move the Amendment to line 13.

Mr. Renton: That is a further factor to which I draw attention. For the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley to be made, the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich should not succeed.
The intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) was valid. There are arguments—I do not say very strong arguments—in favour of admitting the Press to meetings of all police authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich mentioned some of them. What he did not say was that from time to time in past years—and some hon. Members may think in recent years—there has been occasions when watch committees and other police authorities—I do not want to single out watch committees—have made decisions which have sometimes ultimately surprised the public and when the public would have understood those decisions very much better if the Press had been present in order that the explanation underlying those decisions might have been made. That is an argument in favour of keeping police authorities in the Bill.

Mr. Ede: Are not all those cases cases of police discipline, which the hon. and learned Member has himself conceded ought not to be discussed in public?

Mr. Renton: I would not say that they were all matters of police discipline, but in so far as they were, the right hon. Gentleman has made a valid point.

Mr. Victor Yates: The hon. and learned Gentleman has added to the confusion. He has said that it does not matter which way the House decides and will not make any difference so long as the House decides one way or the other. How can we decide with that kind of advice? He went on to say that we are consistent

in England and that there is a difference between the positions in England and Scotland and that so long as we are consistent in England, it does not matter what happens in Scotland.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Oh, but it does.

Mr. Yates: On Second Reading and in Committee I said that the Press should be admitted, when an authority decided, to meetings of the watch committee, the education committee, and so on. However, the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) has called attention to one matter which I overlooked. The Schedule would permit the Press to attend meetings of sub-committees of watch committees. For some years, the Birmingham Corporation has admitted the Press to meetings of the watch committee, but matters of discipline, promotion, and other things fundamental to the way in which the police force works and the difficulties which the police force encounters have been discussed in a sub-committee, the judicial sub-committee, to which the Press has not been admitted.

Mr. Kirk: I see no reference in the Schedule to sub-committees. Can the hon. Member help me?

Mr. Yates: There is no reference to sub-committees, but it mentions watch committees of borough councils and says that the Press is to be admitted to subcommittees consisting of every member of the committee. What I am saying is that the Birmingham judicial sub-Committee consists of all the members of the watch committee. It is important that that sub-committee should be able in private to discuss the very full information which is given by the chief constable. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman made a distinction between the positions in England and Scotland, in practice there is no such distinction with Birmingham, because the watch committee is elected by the council and its sub-committee, consisting of all the members of the watch committee, discusses matters such as discipline, appointments, promotion and so on. If a sub-committee is formed to consider all these matters of privacy, and if it consists of every member of the watch committee, its meetings might have to be in public; and it would be a very serious matter in Birmingham if


the Press and the public were admitted to hear the discussions.

Mr. Renton: A borough council appoints a watch committee. It does so because it has power of appointment, not merely because it is exercising a power of delegation. Appointment and delegation are quite different things.

Mr. Yates: That may be so, but in Birmingham the watch committee re-reports to the council and it may be questioned in council upon its report on all matters affecting the police service. From my own knowledge, I can say that thirty years ago the question of the police attending meetings and taking secret reports was discussed in the City Council.
I do not object to the Press being admitted to full meetings of the watch committee which can give general information of interest to the public. Difficulties arise, however, if the Press are to be admitted to the judicial committee. Recently we had a dreadful murder in Birmingham. The chief constable was naturally anxious to give the fullest information, and he gave a great deal of information about the murder to the judicial committee. It is a good thing that all members of the watch committee should be members of such a committee, because all members of such an authority ought to have the fullest information which the chief constable can give. But the House will see at once that to admit the public to a discussion of that kind would bring immense difficulties. To use the words of the town clerk of Birmingham, "It would not lead to the maintenance of law and order."
The hon. Member for Dulwich has done a service in bringing this matter forward, because it is important to distinguish between the watch committee and a sub-committee which consists of all members of the watch committee. The sub-committee may discuss some matters in private and general matters may be brought through the full committee to the council.
I appreciate the dilemma of the hon. and learned Member when he says that it is unfair to have one set of rules for one police authority and another set of rules for another police authority. Could not the hon. Lady consider the sug-

gestion which she made earlier that a change could be made in the Bill in another place? As the Bill stands, members of the Press and the public would be able to listen to everything, unless the councillors went through the rigmarole of considering each item before the meeting and deciding which should be discussed in private and which in public. I should prefer all police authorities to be out of the Bill altogether rather than to be in it on conditions which I think will be very unsatisfactory to the public and to the maintenance of law and order.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Kirk: This is a very difficult point. At the beginning, I was in favour of having watch committees in the Bill, on the ground of consistency. It seems to me, however, that there are only two courses open to the House, neither of which is covered by the Amendment. The first is to strike out paragraph (c) of the Schedule and remove all police authorities from the Bill. The second is to retain paragraph (c) and to devise a procedure whereby the very important points referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) can be covered. Neither of those courses can be pursued by the House at the moment.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) is not here—possibly he will return shortly—for I wish to suggest that if these Amendments were not pressed it might be possible between now and whatever stage is appropriate in another place for discussions to take place with the local authority associations and the police authorities, who, I am certain, have an important point to make about this issue. We could then see whether a form could be devised which would keep the police authorities in the Bill, but leave out the matters of discipline and of private life which we all want to leave out. I am sure that that would be the best solution. Without it we cannot reach a consistent or logical decision. I suggest that we should let the matter fall at the moment and see whether a solution cannot be found in another place.

Mr. M. Stewart: I agree that there are two possibilities before the House, but my preference is to try to get rid of


paragraph (c) altogether. The Joint Under-Secretary of State heroically attempted to set a balanced argument before us and to try not to lead the House too positively in one direction or another. For that, he was criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), who said that the hon. and learned Member had failed to make up his mind for him. I had hoped to attempt to do that myself, but, unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not in the Chamber.
Paragraph (c) mentions a number of police authorities. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) excludes one kind of police authority. The hon. Member gave important reasons why he thought that that kind of authority should be treated differently from others, and I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary of State fully did justice to those reasons. I do not propose to argue that further now, however. It seemed to be strongly the hon. and learned Member's view that all police authorities must be treated alike, and I detected from his tone of voice and manner the suggestion that if the Amendment is carried the Government will do their best to see that consistency is then obtained by getting rid of the paragraph altogether. That was the tenor of the hon. and learned Member's speech. He argued that on grounds of consistency.
The hon. and learned Member went on, however, to point out to us that Scottish police authorities are untouched by the Bill anyway, and it has been argued forcibly by several of my hon. Friends that if we are searching for consistency we should take that as the starting point. The Scottish police authorities are out now. There is a considerable balance of argument whether any of the police authorities ought to be in. It is argued that consistency in this matter is a good thing in itself. It seems to me that on those three facts the best solution is to treat the English authorities like the Scottish authorities and to take them out of the Bill altogether.
That conclusion is reinforced by the arguments adduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and others on both sides of the House who have spoken about the general

lack of wisdom of much police business being discussed before the public and the Press. I do not think that anyone has any doubts about that. It has been argued that if police authorities remain in the Bill their power of exclusion will be used very frequently. We are in a situation in which already there seems to be a considerable balance of arguments on both sides, where the argument of consistency, if carried through properly, is an argument in favour of taking the English authorities out of the Bill, and where the fact is that if they are kept in the Bill they will probably use the power of exclusion in nine cases out of ten or ninety-nine out of a hundred. Surely the sensible thing is to take them out altogether.
I do not think that it is a good thing either for the law in general, or for local authorities, for us to create situations in which the public will have the nominal right to access subject to powers of exclusion, and the power of exclusion will nearly always be used. It is reasonable to give the public a right of entry, on the understanding that there is a power of exclusion, in all those cases where the power of exclusion will only be used occasionally. To go out of our way to create a situation where we say that these bodies must let the public in when we know that in most cases, because of the nature of the business, they will have to be kept out, is not desirable. If we add up all the arguments, we are driven to that conclusion.
It seemed to me that in that part of his speech where the Joint Under-Secretary of State was talking about the unwisdom of publicity for certain police matters he was speaking much more from the heart than during the latter part of his speceh, when he replied to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and tried to produce arguments on the other side.

Mr. Renton: I shall have to have my heart examined.

Mr. Stewart: I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to follow his heart on this occasion. The right answer is to delete paragraph 1 (c). We cannot do that now, but if we want to do that the first step that will have that result in due time is to accept the Amendment,


moved by the hon. Member for Dulwich So far as it is proper, on a Private Member's Bill, for anyone speaking from either Front Bench to recommend any course to his hon. Friends, that is the course I would recommend to my hon. Friends on this occasion.

Mr. W. Hamilton: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, because, if I judged aright, the nodding of his head indicated that he was very much in sympathy with the argument put forward by my hon. Friend.
I rise to speak because I do not see a representative of the Scottish Office on the Front Bench. I had a word with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland prior to our meeting this morning. He explained that he would not be present because he felt that the two Amendments concerning Scotland were not controversial, and that the Scottish Office had no strong feelings on the matter. It is clear that he was not aware of the arguments that are now being adduced on both sides, whether the Press and the public should be admitted to meetings of police authorities. It would have been helpful if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had recognised the importance of that point and had stayed behind to give the view of the Scottish Office.
We believe that the superiority of Scotland compared with England in matters of law is well known and admitted on both sides. But it would be of great advantage to the House if the Scottish Office had a representative present to give the views of the Scottish Office on the advisability of allowing the Press into meetings of police authorities. It is unprecedented that a representative of the Home Office should speak on behalf of the Scottish Office, and I would be doing less than my duty if I did not voice a protest about this on this occasion. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, in seeking to speak for the Scottish Office, urges consistency he ought also to urge the adoption throughout the United Kingdom of the Scottish example.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland

and I often help each other out with work in the House, and we are very glad to do so. I should make it clear that on this occasion I was not attempting to speak specifically for the Scottish Office. When speaking for the Home Department, I was merely pointing out that there was this difference between the two countries in the Bill.

Sir R. Grimston: We are in a peculiar position over this. But for the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) we should not have been able to discuss whether watch committee should come out or not. It is only because my hon. Friend acted in the way that she did that we can discuss the matter at all. There are certainly balanced arguments on both sides on this matter. I take the view that the police authorities should be embraced in the Bill, although I realise that there are powerful arguments against that, and that there will be exceptions to the occasions when they should be embraced in the Bill.
The only advice that my hon. and learned Friend gave the House was that whatever we do we must be consistent. I suggest that we have reached the point where it is very difficult to take it further here, and that there should be further consultations with the Home Department, local authority associations, and the police. It seems to me, therefore, that honour and chivalry would be requited all round if my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) withdrew his Amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley having withdrawn hers, and the matter were dealt with in another place.
It will have to come back to this House by way of Lords Amendments so we shall not entirely lose control, but after what has happened I humbly and respectfully suggest to the House that that would be the best and the most honourable way out of the present position.

Mrs. Thatcher: I thought that most of my troubles would be over today, but I now understand why it is Friday, 13th May. My hon. and learned Friend said that his heart would have to be examined. Some of us were beginning to think that it was not only our hearts that would need examining.
As I understand it, consistency is the main thing. I should like to say a word in defence of my Amendment, because I was under the impression that that was the only one which was strictly consistent, which I will now try to prove. My researches showed that in Scotland the police authority was the town council and the county council. Those ace within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, they are in. In the Metropolitan district of London the Home Secretary is the authority. I did not need to get him in, because he is here in any case. In the City of London the Common Council is the police authority. That is in the Bill.
In counties the standing joint committee is the police authority. That is within the Bill. In county boroughs the watch committee is the police authority. Those committees remain in the Bill. In boroughs which are treated as county boroughs for police purposes, the police authority is the watch committee. By my Amendment they would remain in the Bill and all the rest would be struck out. In some areas one gets amalgamation and consolidation arrangements where the authority is the combined police authority. Those are within the Bill already.
I therefore totally reject the argument that my Amendment would introduce inconsistency into the Bill. If my Amendment were accepted the Bill would be entirely consistent.

Mr. Renton: Mr. Renton indicated assent.

Mrs. Thatcher: My hon. and learned Friend nods in assent. Therefore, I must be clear upon this matter. If consistency is the main object, it would be secured by the successful passage of my Amendment. In deference, however, to opinions that have been expressed, it seems to me that what we want is not consistency but a matter of principle which, astonishing though it may be, has not yet been decided by reference to these particular authorities.
Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) will withdraw his Amendment, I undertake not to move mine. I will further undertake to use such influence as I can possibly exert over the other House to have this matter considered as one

of principle, with a view to securing a result which is consistent and which also adequately reflects the principle upon which we have yet to decide.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: In view of the gracious way in which my hon. Friend has spoken, I cannot resist the temptation to accede to her request. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.0 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, at the end to insert:
and consisting of or including representatives of local authorities within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1933".
This Amendment corrects an anomaly. I understand that there can be joint water committees consisting of the boards of ordinary water companies. I know of one such joint committee consisting of the boards of two ordinary water companies. It was not intended that the Bill should cover such bodies. It is a unique case; the boards, as separate entities would not come within the scope of the Bill. It is anomalous that the terms of the Bill should cover boards joined together to form a joint committee or joint board when its constituent members are not covered by the Bill.
I have, however, thought fit to keep within the scope of the Bill those bodies which consist partly of water companies and partly of local authority representatives. Those should remain within the scope of the Bill, if only for the reason that they are, in large measure, treated as local authorities and subject to certain local authority provisions. For instance, all the members are entitled to travelling and subsistence allowances under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948.
I therefore propose that a hybrid body should be covered by the Bill when its members include local authority representatives. But those joint bodies and committees which are formed entirely of water boards which, as separate entities, would not come within the scope of the Bill, will be excluded from it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 35, leave out
or to advise on the discharge of".—[Mr. W. Hamilton.]

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 4 to 6.
This Amendment is designed to bring the position of probation committees in Scotland into line with the position of similar committees in England, which have already been deleted from the Bill.

Mr. W. Hamilton: I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Lady for giving Scotland what England already has. We have been watching the position very carefully and are glad to see that the hon. Lady has succumbed to our pursuasions.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. Robert Woof: After having listened to an interesting Report stage, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on the Bill on Third Reading. In addressing the House on to the main principle of the Bill, with its avowed purpose of bringing the Press into closer relationship with local government and the public, I would only add that those of us who have had long and varied experience of local government realise that it is by making reasonable disclosures to the public that the principle of civic energies can best be asserted. In these days of large-scale organisation it is necessary to encourage and preserve the maximum interest between local authorities and the general public, just as it is imperative to cultivate that essential responsibility with some magnaminity of rewarding civic spirit.
On the salient point in Clause 1, Which refers to the admission of the Press to council meetings, it seems that representatives will have to fall back on all the wisdom and experience at their command. Precisely how much difference this will make only experience will show. Looking at the Bill as it now stands, I recall the Minister telling us, in the Second Reading debate, that the council which, in its relations with the Press, stacks rigidly to its minimum obligation

by law, is not providing as good a service as the one which operates properly, with a public-spirited ideal. I completely agree with that.
The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the ridiculous lengths to which some councils go in interpreting these minimum obligations. There are many points in this connection with which I do not want to weary the House; neither do I wish to risk being ruled out of order. But it is with special interest that I note, in Clause 1 (3, b), the proposal to supply, on request, copies of reports and documents for the benefit of the Press and the public. I do not know whether this is intended to enlighten the public on much of the unseen work done by councils—which greatly merits public attention and gratitude—but it greatly attracts my attention.
I have a very strong liking for the Bill, and especially for the prominence which it is intended to be given. These reports and documents are based on facts that portray work demanding a large amount of mental labour from responsible officials and representatives. They also indicate the degree of importance in revealing and communicating the activities of the council both in its loyalty and in its character. But having in mind such a process for the public good—I must say that I am in full agreement with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who moved the Second Reading of her Bill in such a worthy and admirable maiden speech —I believe that there is a strong case for safeguarding the rights of citizens and protecting civil liberties.
In supporting the proposals to mark an advance in public interest, perhaps I may be allowed to quote a classical example which I think is one incongruity that undoubtedly proves the need for such legislation. I am fully acquainted with a distinct element composed of people who are supposed to be operating as public representatives on the Whickham Urban District Council, in my constituency, and who, by their crushing despotism, even deny to their own faithful officers copies of reports and documents of the council.
This may seem an unusual relationship in dealing with the public affairs


of a council. The idea of supplying the Press with reports and documents for the purpose of publication may be one way of remedying such an outstanding legitimate grievance.
Hon. Members should not be surprised if the officials concerned feel sore and sensitive about the position, and lose heart and interest when the circumstances under which they labour are brought about by such discreditable means The legislation with which we are dealing should have a restraining influence on such intolerable actions.
But really—and I do not apologise for asking this—what satisfaction can be gained from such a motive, from this council imposing its dogmatic egoism on the working talents of its own officers? This kind of non-co-operation is most unreasonable and obviously wrong. I can only describe this kind of conduct as extremely bad and one which is exercised with such incredible obstinacy as to form a blight on local government.
I would hesitate to say whether some of these representatives have sufficient greatness of mind to admit the grave error of their shameful conduct towards and their treatment of their own officers.

Mr. Wilkins: Who controls this council?

Mr. Woof: I will tell my hon. Friend later.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I think that this would be an appropriate time for me to intervene to remind the hon. Member that this is the Third Reading of the Bill, and that he cannot go too far.

Mr. Woof: I respectfully honour your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I am grateful to you for keeping me on the straight and narrow path. But as you know, and as we all know, it is sometimes difficult to strike a match on a bar of soap. But there is always a simple way of doing some things.
To my mind, the function and purpose of this proposed piece of legislation suggests, in general, ways and means by which the public can, without impeachment, take a much greater interest in local government affairs, and

by administrative ability one would naturally hope that such critical questioning and suspicions would be swept aside.
I now want to turn to another important aspect of the Bill—the question of the admission of the public to council meetings. Again, I want to draw the attention of the House to a valid reason why I must follow up this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) drew attention, on Report, to the action of the St. Pancras Borough Council in depriving the public of the opportunity to attend council meetings for the next three months. I must be believed when I say, and I will say it quite honestly, that the officers of the Whickham Urban District Council are not even allowed to be present at council meetings except in so far as they are kept in a waiting room ready to be called in case a councillor wishes to ask a question on a particular point. If the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should by chance happen to call in there one night he will probably find the officials lined up as if ready to go on a Sunday school trip.
This is the second occasion on which I have had to confine my remarks to such unjustified behaviour, and I hope that it will be the last. Can anyone think of anything more humiliating from an official point of view? Hon. Members may think that what I have said is fantastic, but I can assure the House that it is the unrestricted truth. The effect of this boss-rule technique has created a great deal of despair.
We have heard quite a lot about public interest, trust and duty. But what kind of trust is this that lends itself to creating a false relationship which refuses to hide itself? It has often been said that justice is a curious pair of scales. It may well be that this Bill heralds a coming change which will do away with such retrograde standards as I have enumerated.
This, I am sorry to say, is far from being the whole story. I acknowledge that the rules covering this debate prevent me going much deeper into the matter. Whether or not such cheerless non-co-operation is by design or appetite to apply iron control, I must say that it has a very bad effect in breeding so much disillusionment among those who


are worthy of much better recognition for the services they render.
Therefore, I am glad to be able to say that the Bill should provide the opportunity to open the doors to more gentle trust. In the battle of public interest within the scope of the Bill, I am reluctant to say that case-hardened illustrations have been advanced with caustic remarks against Socialist-controlled authorities. I have sought to deal with another type of conduct that seeks to cloak its real identity under a show of respectability—and what a show of respectability it is!
The Minister of Housing and Local Government is one of the hardest-worked of the Ministers, but he promised on Second Reading to consult the local authority associations about formulating a code of conduct—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. A code of conduct is right outside the scope of the Bill, which deals with the admission of the public to meetings.

Mr. Woof: Once again, I respect your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to connect the Minister's promise to get the local authority associations to formulate a code of conduct with the type of conduct to which I have been referring.
The ability of the Press and local authorities to work together for the benefit of the public depends on their attitude, and on the utmost civility directed to the establishment of the greatest good. I have expressed my thoughts and observations on the present state, and what remains now hazy in the distance we shall continue to watch, step by step, trusting that the good features of the Bill will be instrumental in removing restrictions and frictions, and add somewhat to common sense and the high cause of local government.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Even though this Bill is now very emasculated, it still remains a small improvement on the 1908 Act. It was implied in the Standing Committee that because I was a journalist I was necessarily partisan, but as an active member of the second largest local authority in the country—Middlesex County Council —I am vitally concerned that this

Measure should go a long way to encourage the general public to take a greater interest in local government. I believe that better publicity could and should be the main life-blood of a local authority.
As we all know, there is a very considerable lack of interest in local authority work at present, as was again brought out yesterday in the local government polling. According to this morning's newspapers, polling was as low as 13·6 per cent. in Mansfield, 17·2 per cent. in Truro and 18 per cent. in Kendal. I am quite sure that if the newspapers gave more publicity to local government affairs the polling percentage would be much higher—

Mr. H. Hynd: Does not the low poll explain the percentage of Tory successes?

Mr. Smith: No, indeed. I did not want to develop that point because I thought that it would be out of order, but as a matter of fact, in my constituency of Brentford and Chiswick it was well over 50 per cent.—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member was quite right in not pursuing the point.

Mr. Smith: Under the Bill as it now stands, the grounds for the temporary exclusion of Press and public are more tightly drawn than under the old Act. It will be more difficult for local authorities to get round its provisions, though I do not doubt that some may try to do so if it suits their book. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) referred to the Borough of St. Pancras, and said that he wished that the Bill could have become law earlier, and speculated on what would then have happened about the exclusion of the public by the St. Pancras Borough Council.
I think that that would have been covered by the words in Clause 1 (2):
… or for other special reasons stated in the resolution …
I believe that there were reports in the Press of eggs being thrown at the St. Pancras council meeting, and I imagine that such conduct would debar the public from meetings of any authority, or Parliament, or of other institutions—

Mr. Reynolds: It is perfectly true that the council there, had this Bill then been law, could have said in the resolution that it wished to exclude the public, but had the Bill been on the Statute Book at that time the council could not have said, "We will punish you by exclusion, not only from this meeting but from the next two meetings as well". That would not have been permissible. And the hon. Member should remember that as the Bill is now worded, if the public were excluded the Press would have to go as well.

Mr. Smith: I appreciate that, but I imagine that such action is taken to instil into the public an idea of better conduct at these meetings. But I agree that this is covered by the Bill.
The provision of agendas and enough documents to make the business intelligible, not only to the members of the Press but to members of the public, is to be welcomed. Some councils have been very backward in this regard—[An HON. MEMBER: "Which ones?"] I could give chapter and verse. For brevity's sake, I do not wish to go into details, but I know that some local authorities have not gone as far as they could in providing all possible information.
I am sure that the local Press will welcome the Bill in its revised form, but I hope that one day this House will be sensible enough to go even further. Local authority functions have changed quite drastically in the last ten years. Post-war powers over education and health have given local authorities a much more varied scope, and it is very important that the public should know exactly what is going on in the various town halls.
A great opportunity has been lost in this Bill in dealing with committees with delegated powers—but I would probably be out of order were I to go into that. I will only say that I have distinct reservations about the Bill, although I still support it. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on the admirable way in which she has piloted the Measure so far, and for the way in which she has coped with the various difficulties that have arisen.
I agree entirely with the comment in The Times after the Bill had been dealt

with in the Standing Committee. Under the heading "Half Measure," it said:
As it now stands the Bill requires of local authorities- less than they should be prepared voluntarily to concede in order to keep the public properly informed of their affairs. Constant vigilance and protest will be needed to keep the backsliders up to the mark. The voluntary code, which it is the Minister's wish to negotiate, may help matters. But it will not have the force of law.
I hope that there will be constant vigilance and protest when the Bill is enacted. Personally, I welcome the Measure.

1.28 p.m.

Mr. Wilkins: I was beginning to think that I should probably be the first hon. Member to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on getting the Bill so far, and I believe that she is assured of its Third Reading. As one who contributed, I fear, considerably to her discomfort in Committee, I now offer her my warm congratulations. I believe that the Bill has been amended to some advantage, though, perhaps, not to the satisfaction of everyone in this House. Indeed. I must tell her that even now, although I hope to see this Measure put on the Statute Book, I am not wholly in agreement with all its provisions, and I was very disappointed that I was not able to make one or two Amendments in Committee.
I have only two observations to make, and the first concerns the opening words of subsection (3, b) of Clause 1:
… there shall, on request and on payment of postage or other necessary charge for transmission, be supplied …",
I believe that, in that form, those words will prove mandatory.
I do not know whether it will still reside with the local authority to supply, as many of them have done in the past, these documents and necessary facilities to journalists to send their reports to the local newspapers while the proceedings are still continuing by the free use of telephone services and so on. Generally speaking, local newspapers are highly critical of the expenditure of ratepayers' money, especially if this happens in the area of a local authority which is Labour-controlled, and therefore one welcomes the fact that the local authorities can use this Bill in order to make justifiable charges to newspaper


proprietors for the services and amenities which are made available to them to enable them to convey their news to their readers. Although in the end this may result in only a comparatively small saving, nevertheless it will be a contribution to the rate fund which has to be supplied by the ratepayers, and from that point of view it is certainly desirable.
The other point to which I wish to refer is, in the strict sense of the word, not in the Bill; but nevertheless I think I can claim that our deliberations during the Committee stage of this Bill were conditioned by the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government that he would try to come to an agreement with local authorities and with the Press on a code of conduct. The only observation that I feel inclined to make is that we need a code of conduct to correct the misconduct of a lot of newspapers in this country, particularly in the reporting of local matters and the bias that they import into those reports.
I am one who believes that if people ask for privileges they ought to accept the responsibilities that go with those privileges in a completely unbiased manner, and the newspapers should tell the public exactly what is happening in their local authorities. If they did that without bias we would not have seen the results which have occurred in the local elections. [Laughter.] That may be a laughing matter and a matter of high glee to hon. Members opposite, but if they had seen the sort of thing that has been going on in the City of Bristol in the last two years they would not laugh. That is why I am so anxious that this promise by the Minister will be fulfilled.
I think the hon. Lady will agree that she has some reason to be grateful for the co-operation of hon. Members on this side of the House. I will not refer to such hon. Members as "the Opposition" because this is a Private Member's Bill, and we were probably divided on both sides on various aspects of the Bill in the Committee stage, but I think she will agree that we all tried to be reasonable. At no time was there any deliberate attempt to stop the Bill by hon. Members on this side of the House. Our objections were perfectly

legitimate and reasonable. I am glad to see that having carried out a surgical operation on the Bill, it is now about to receive its Third Reading, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on her success for the first time of asking.

1.34 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan (Hitchen): I wish to say a few words in support of the Bill. I made one brief intervention during the Committee stage; otherwise, I would have remained silent until today.
I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on having introduced the Bill and having carried it so far, because I believe that it will help to make successful the far-reaching reforms in local government which are being carried through by my right hon. Friend in relation to the finance, functions and areas of local government. The success of these reforms will depend upon the quality of the councillors who stand and are elected, and the quality of the councillors will depend upon the interest which is taken in local government matters. I believe, therefore, that the Bill, by creating and stimulating such interest, will make a real contribution towards the success of strengthening the quality and independence of local authorities.
Some councillors and members of other public bodies may fear—and anticipation is usually worse than the event—the effect of their deliberations being in public and with the Press present. To them, I would say that when it comes to the point it is nothing like so bad as they may imagine, despite what the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) just told us. I believe that if one has a robust conviction in what one has to say, one will say it regardless of whether the public hear it or not. We want on our local councils people of robust conviction, who are willing to speak out, perhaps because the public are there rather than despite that fact.

Mr. Wilkins: What have I said that has suggested anything other than that?

Mr. Maddan: I was referring to the matter of the Bristol Council, to which the hon. Gentleman referred when he implied that people had spoken out and that the newspapers had not reported as


they should what had been said, to the detriment of the people who had spoken. If a man has robust convictions, he may be misrepresented—that can always happen—but this is the sort of person that we want, and he will go ahead just the same. We do not want timorous people running the important affairs of local authorities.
For these reasons, I am very happy to support the Bill, in spite of its attenuated form. It is a Measure of greater importance than may appear at first sight.

1.37 p.m.

Mr. Reynolds: I wish to add my congratulations to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) for having piloted this Bill this far after having been fortunate in the Ballot. I also think that, on the whole, the Committee made quite a good job of the Bill. The Bill which we are now discussing is very different from the Bill to the Second Reading of which my hon. Friends and I put down a reasoned Amendment some months ago.
The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) expressed the hope that the Bill will assist in encouraging people of robust views to stand for election to local authorities. With those sentiments I completely agree, but, to be honest, I cannot see how the Bill will do that. The Bill, by providing that the Press shall have certain rights to go into council meetings, does not guarantee that the Press will make use of those rights in reporting the proceedings or in reporting them as accurately as such proceedings ought to be reported. That is one of the reasons why I hope the Minister will press ahead with the discussions which I know he is going to have with local authority associations and representatives of the Press to get a code of conduct governing these activities and to ensure that they are carried out in conformity with the spirit of the Bill.
The Minister made the House fully aware, as did many other hon. Members, including myself on Second Reading, that local authorities and the Press must go far beyond the legalistic interpretation of legislation if we are to get good relations between them and the ratepayers and the general public as a whole.
I was interested to listen to the Home Secretary on television the other night

when he made some slashing attacks on little local dictators in local government. I agree with him. There are some local dictators in local government at the present time, and I hope this Bill will help to expose some of them. I hope it will expose the Tory councillors in Woodford who insist that if a man wants a job as a road sweeper he should not belong or have belonged to the Communist Party—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. There is nothing about that in the Bill.

Mr. M. Stewart: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Bill deals with publicity for the proceedings of local councils. My hon. Friend is drawing attention to the proceedings of one council and saying that the bringing to bear of the light of publicity on them will be a good thing. He is, surely, referring to one of the effects of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the rules about Third Reading as well as I do. As he says, the Bill has to do with the admission of the public to meetings, but I do not think that hon. Members are entitled to go too far in their use of illustrations at the Third Reading stage.

Mr. Reynolds: I fully understand your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was going on to say that this particular council, while observing the strictly legal interpretation of the Bill, does not observe the spirit of it because its own standing orders prohibit discussion of certain of these matters in council meetings, allowing only question and answer through the chairman of the committee. If local authorities are to be allowed to avoid the Bill in that way, we shall not be able to deal with the iniquitous actions of councils such as that of Wanstead and Woodford in imposing completely unwarranted political tests which can do great harm to the freedom of the individual in this country. It will be very good if, through publicity in local newspapers, that kind of thing can be stopped. Local authorities like that in Wanstead and Woodford must work according to the spirit of the Bill, not just the legalistic interpretation of it.
There is the case of the local councillors, which has been mentioned twice already this morning, who only a week


or two ago decided to keep the public out of their council meetings for the next three months, calling upon themselves the right to determine that they would punish local ratepayers for the throwing of an egg during one of the council meetings—punishing not just the person who threw the egg but all the local ratepayers by barring them from attending meetings for three months. Once the Bill comes into operation, it will be impossible for the reactionary elements in the St. Pancras Borough Council to play that game again.
In this connection, it is a disappointment to me that we have to wait for 12 months before we can stop that kind of thing. Judging by the way they are behaving at the moment, those councillors in St. Pancras are quite likely to extend the ban for six months after the end of the original ban is reached. I admit that they were under great provocation at the time, but those who accept public office must recognise that, though they may be provoked at one stage, it is not right to make a decision, at a time when tempers are frayed, binding the authority as a whole to exclude a very large number of people for months ahead from attending its meetings. They should have looked at the matter in a rather cooler atmosphere. If they had done that, they would not, perhaps, have made that decision
At any rate, the Bill will prevent that sort of thing in the future and for that I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley. It will stop these little local dictators of Wanstead and Woodford and St. Pancras—Conservative authorities both—from behaving in that way. They will not be able to get away with such things quite so easily as they have been during the past few months.
I refer to these matters because, as the House will recall, most of the justification for the Bill when first introduced was based on attacks on Labour-controlled authorities and the actions Which they had taken in the preceding six or 12 months. One of them was the Nottingham Corporation in the activities of its watch committee. The Bill even as it stood before we began the Report stage, and as it now stands, would not regulate the sort of thing which happens

in Nottingham when people are not allowed in to hear discussions as to whether the chief constable—this would apply not only to Nottingham but to anywhere else—should be suspended. The attack of the supporters of the Bill originally was very much aimed at the Nottingham Corporation and other Labour-controlled councils which might not wish to allow certain proceedings concerning their officials to become pub-Mc. The Bill will not, and never would even in its original form, achieve that purpose. It will, of course, make it impossible for the sort of thing which happened in Liverpool and one or two other places during the recent Press strike to occur again. I have no objection to that.
When the Bill was first introduced, almost every supporter of it, though not, I admit, the hon. Lady herself, insisted that in its first draft it represented an act of retribution against certain Labour councils which, in the opinion of those hon. Members, had done things they ought not to have done during the previous few months. It is somewhat ironic that, at the time of the Third Reading, the boot is on the other foot and Conservative-controlled councils are doing things which, in my view and the view of many hon. Members, they ought not to do.
The Bill is very different from the one which we discussed on Second Reading. It gives the Press and the public certain rights which they did not have hitherto, but, at the same time, it limits the Press in certain ways compared with the position under the old Local Authorities (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1908. For example, as I understand it, once the Bill becomes effective, the Press will not itself have a right to admission to meetings of public bodies simply as the Press. It will have the right of admission because the public will have that right, and the Press is to be regarded as part of the public. This departs from the previous rather special position which the Press has occupied hitherto.
From the point of view of the Press, I should not have thought that that was altogether desirable, but, from the point of view of the public, I am glad that there will be a right of admission to meetings of local authority. Here I must say that, with the sole exception of St.


Pancras, I do not think that the question of keeping the public out and preventing them from attending full meetings of local councils has ever been seriously in doubt during the last fifty years. The St. Pancras Borough Council was the only one to start the trouble, and it is a good thing that we are able to step in quickly and prevent it doing so again.
This is a handy Bill, but it will not become fully effective and will not be of great use unless the elected members of local authorities, the full-time salaried officials of local authorities and the Press itself at all levels, from owners and editors down to reporting staffs, are prepared to work to the spirit of it and co-operate with one another in presenting to the people who actually have to pay for local services fair and unbiased reports of the debates in the council chamber. I hope that local newspapers will keep their comments on matters in the council chamber in some way separate from the reports of the actual events which occur there. In that way, the Press, in co-operation with the local authorities, could do much to correct the scandalous situation to which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) drew attention in his speech a little earlier when he told us of the very low percentage poll which occurred in many parts of the country at this week's elections. I have no doubt that the same thing will, unfortunately, occur in the few elections which take place today and the many which are to take place tomorrow.
Co-operation between local authorities and the local Press can do much to cure this trouble. Nevertheless, I stick to my own view that one of the principal reasons for the low percentage poll at this year's elections is that, on the whole, people are fairly satisfied with the type of service given by local authorities, and this, in my view, meets the criticism made during the passage of this Bill and at other times about the activities of local government in this country during the last fifteen years.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: When the Bill was first presented, I had serious doubts about it, but, during its passage through Standing Committee, very substantial changes

were made and I am now very ready to give it a welcome. I join with hon. Members on both sides who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on the very real service she has rendered.
Clearly, it is wholesome that the public should know what their elected representatives say and aim to do in local authority bodies. At this stage of our development, I imagine that no one will challenge that principle. Nevertheless, I wish to express one or two cautionary views, if I may put it in that way. In implementing or giving further recognition to the rights of the public—a phrase which we very readily use—we are in this context granting new powers to the Press; that is to say, in those cases, which I believe are in the minority, where it was not admitted.
The Bill does not require an official report of council proceedings. It makes provision to admit the Press in circumstances in which it was not formerly admitted and to admit the public. The admittance of the Press will, we hope, result in greater publicity and perhaps in greater public interest. But, in my judgment, it does not automatically follow that because of more publicity there will be better publicity. In the part of Lancashire with which I am familiar, we are very well served by our local Press, but we must remember that, whether it is the national Press or the local Press, it is the main concern of the reporter to get his report accepted by his editor and, in turn, it is the main concern of the editor to get his newspaper sold and read. Those considerations undoubtedly present temptations.
There is the danger that, in seeking to have the debates of local authorities reported and read, they may be somewhat over-edited and that there will be on occasion reports which are perhaps a little misleading. I do not wish to use words which may be taken to be criticism of the Press at a whole. I believe that the task of reporting a debate in a committee of a local authority is exceedingly difficult, but I feel that it cannot be assumed that in all cases the deliberations of councillors will be reported in a way which gives a complete picture.
It is implied in the Bill that, in some way or other, all the vices are vested in the politicians and all the virtues in


the Press. I think that that is unfortunate. Clearly, if there were, as a consequence of the Bill, verbatim reports of the proceedings of local authority committees, nobody would read them. They would be very boring. Therefore, the more vivid, and perhaps what are known as greater news value, items which are discussed will be published, and, as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) said, that perhaps will do harm rather than good to public interest in local government.
Further, for the most part, in the smaller local authorities the Press, as we speak of it, will be operating a monopoly. Generally, only one newspaper will make the report. I do not wish to imply that this monopoly will be abused, but the ordinary correctives which exist when several newspapers report proceedings and which exist over the country with regard to the proceedings in this House will not apply. It is true that members of the public will attend local authority meetings if they feel inclined, and that is a wholesome corrective, but I think that experience to date suggests that few people will attend as private individuals as a result of the Bill. I think that we would delude ourselves if we were to assume that this welcome improvement of the Bill will affect substantially the nature of the reporting.
On balance, I am satisfied that this is a good Bill, and I welcome it. I have the reservations which I have expressed about it, but I shall welcome the opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, with my vote if need be, on the Bill, but I felt obliged to express the views which I have expressed because there are certain dangers implicit in the Bill. We should not accept without some reservations the idea that, because of more reporting and more publicity, the deliberations of elected representatives will be more accurately conveyed to the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley said this morning that she had hoped that by this stage she would have been over the worst of her troubles. I I am sure that I am in order in saying that I hope very much that in implementing the undertaking which she gave earlier concerning the exercise of her influence and, if I may say so, charm

in another place, she will be entirely successful.

1.55 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and I are very far apart politically, although I am very near to her constituency residentially, but I want to express my very sincere congratulations to her on having reached this stage with her Bill and the ability with which she has guided it through all its stages. The Bill will contribute tremendously to democracy in this country. It is enormously important that people in any locality should be aware of what is done, not only in full meetings of councils, but in committees where important decisions are reached. The hon. Lady has made a real contribution to democracy in this country.
I want particularly to express the gratitude of the journalistic profession. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) have commented on the way in which the Press reports the proceedings of local councils. I say very earnestly that if there are failures in that respect they are due much more to the ownership of the newspapers than to the working journalists serving on them. Working journalists, as a whole, have a desire to serve the public and to serve democracy. I am sure that all of them will wish to take advantage of the Bill to give a picture to the constituents in their localities of what is happening in public affairs.
As the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton spoke, I was rather reminded of an incident in my own journalistic life almost fifty years ago. A local authority had very strongly criticised a local newspaper for the way in which it had reported its proceedings. The retort; of the editor of that newspaper was to instruct has reporter on the next occasion to give a verbatim report of fine proceedings at the local authority meeting. The newspaper was published with a verbatim report. It was only necessary to do that once. The representatives of that local authority did not dare to criticise again.
I believe that the Bill will be a real contribution to democracy in our country, and, in particular, I want to


express the gratitude of members of the National Union of Journalists, of which I am a member, for the contribution which the hon. Lady has made toward democratic expression in our community.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Kirk: As a fellow member of the National Union of Journalists, I join the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in expressing my gratitude and admiration to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) for piloting the Bill through the House. I am envious of my hon. Friend on two counts. First, she was successful in the Ballot in her first attempt. Secondly, I have gone in for probably every Ballot that has been open to me since I have been a Member of the House and all that I have ever got was two tickets for the Gallery for the State Opening of Parliament That, however, was on the occasion when the event was televised and, therefore, I did not really gain anything.
The last attempt to deal with this subject was one by myself in a slightly more restricted sphere on the Local Government Bill of 1958. I hope that although we were not successful on that occasion—indeed, I withdrew the new Clauses I moved to that Bill—it has helped to prepare the way for the reform that we are now discussing.
In many ways, the Bill is a disappointment. I should have liked to see it much nearer to its original form, but politics, I suppose, is the art of the possible. The Bill certainly is an immense improvement on the existing law and for that reason it must be welcomed.
Like all journalists, I realise that a Bill of this kind, as both the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) have said, imposes obligations on the Press as well as upon local councillors and upon the public. It is unfortunate that the feeling seems to have grown, not only among local authorities but in this House, that for some reason the Press and the politicians are enemies.
When I first started local authority reporting in Glasgow eleven years ago, as a very junior and bad reporter, I always found that by being hostile I did not

get any information, but that if I was prepared to work with the members of the council, as they were with me, this helped both the Press and the local authorities. That is what should happen and I am sure that in 95 per cent. of cases it does happen. It is when the normal state of affairs breaks down that legislation of this kind is needed.
As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, unless the spirit of the Bill is observed, it will do little more than the existing legislation. It will, however, do one thing more, and that is the most important feature to have come out of the Bill. It is not so much the admission of the public, curiously enough, but the provisions relating to the distribution of documents, that may well turn out to be the most important part of the Bill.
That serves a double purpose, not only that everybody knows in advance what is going on, but, also, that the Press can work up a preparatory interest in the forthcoming meeting of the council. The Press is able to say that when the council next meets it will discuss a certain topic, and the furnishing of documents by the finance committee, the watch committee, or whatever it may be, will make for greater interest.
Already, we have had an example; of how that has worked. I cited this example on the Local Government Bill and I have checked it subsequently to find that it still applies. One local authority which used to bring the Press along with it, take it into its confidence and distribute documents, discovered to its surprise that as a result of the preparatory work done by the Press the average attendance at council meetings increased from three to 80. The attendance grew so big that the council had to move out of the council chamber and hold its meetings in a public hall, which was the only place big enough.
That is the sort of result which, we hope, will come from the Bill. It will not come if either the Press or the local authority tries to stick to the exact legal definition. If, however, people are prepared to work with the additional facilities that will be provided, the Bill will be of immense value, not only to the Press and to the general public but to the whole system of local government.
I should like to think that the troubles of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley were over, but, obviously, one or two points have to be further considered. Pending consideration of them, however, although I admit that I should have preferred the original Bill, the Bill is a good one and I hope that it will go through with little trouble. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on the way that she has got it through so far.

2.5 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I join with those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on the progress that she has made so far with the Bill. I say "so far" because, as we have realised this morning, there is still further to go. I trust, however, that it will not be too troubled a voyage.
I am one of those who consider that the Bill is better now than when it first came before the House, better both in spirit and in its provisions. Originally, it seemed to me that there was too much of a vindictive spirit behind the Bill as it was first proposed. The suggestion was rather too frequently made that it was the usual practice of people engaged in local government to try to avoid publicity, and that all that was necessary to put that right was to give the Press certain privileges that were not to be given to the public.
It seemed to me that as a comparative judgment between local councillors, on the one hand, and journalists, on the other, that was an extremely unjust judgment, and I am glad that that view is no longer expressed. We put that right by saying that what is provided is provided as a public right rather than as a privilege of a certain section of the public, except, of course, for the provisions about documents and one or two other matters in which it is quite proper and reasonable to make special provision for the Press.
I am glad, too, that the provision concerning admissions in committee that were contained in the original draft of the Bill are no longer with us. They were included in the first place because of an incorrect belief that it was a usual practice to use the committee system to dodge publicity. When we examined the matter, we found that any attempt to extend the principle of the Bill to committees involved great difficulties

and that we were trying to do by legislation what could be done only by common sense and good will on both sides. Both in spirit and in letter, we have a better Bill.
The Bill should not give offence or create difficulty for anybody engaged in local government work, except people like those at St. Pancras, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) referred, and those of Wanstead and Woodford and those of the Whickham Council, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) referred. I understand that that council is dominated by a political group of people who describe themselves as ratepayers, a distinction which has not distinguished them from the mass of their fellow citizens.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: Do not spoil a good speech.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member must cast his mind back to some of the things that were said in the earlier debates on the Bill. There are certain aspects to which we are entitled to draw attention. Although we get the St. Pancrases, the Wansteads and Wood-fords, and so on, it would be wrong to suggest that it is general or widespread for local councillors, of any party, to try to dodge proper publicity.
I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) was somewhat unfortunate. He seemed to take the view that no sooner would the Bill become law than councils would begin to look for ways of getting round it. There may be a few who will do so, but we should not let it go out from the House that we consider that that will be the general rule.
If we are to get good results from the Bill, the Press, as well as the local councillors, have certain responsibilities. To begin with, they have a responsibility to ensure that those of their staff who do the reporting of local government work are acquainted with how local government is intended to work. If one were to line up all the persons who are sent to report the dealings of local councils and ask them to give a coherent account of the changes in local government finance made by the Government in the legislation of 1958, I wonder how many of them could do


it. Without understanding a matter like that, however, it is often impossible to report correctly certain of the proceedings of local councils. That seems to me a thing to which editors and, indeed, proprietors of journals ought to give some attention.
I would accept that the question of whether reports are fair may very often be determined not by the working journalists at all, but by the proprietor of the newspaper. If, in his pursuit of a code of conduct, the Minister ever gets a chance to indicate to the proprietors of newspapers that they have some responsibility for good relations between the Press and the local authorities, so much the better.
One of the reasons why I welcome particularly the extension of the Bill to include the public as well as the Press is that it is a check on inaccurate or unfair reporting if the public themselves can be there to see what happens. That is why I dare make this remark, without getting out of order, I hope, and without causing most hon. Members present to disagree with me: that is why I sometimes think that it would be a good thing if the proceedings of this House were broadcast and televised, because I think that if the newspapers knew that the public could see directly what was happening, some of the newspaper accounts would be obliged to be rather more accurate. Be that as it may, I am glad that by the Bill the public axe to have the right of entry to council meetings and that it is not merely the Press.
We must recognise, of course, that there are limits to what can be done by legislation. We can give the public the right to go to the meetings of local authorities, but I cannot myself believe that, for example, there will be hordes streaming into the next meeting of a local water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, or, indeed, of one or two other of the bodies mentioned in the Schedule. Still, at least they will have the right to do so. Legislation cannot, by itself, secure good relations. That has got to be done, in the end, by the genuine seeking of good relations on both sides, the Press, and the people engaged in local government —and the public as the most important third party of the lot.
Despite that, despite the limitations of legislation, I believe that the Bill does good. First, by bringing the very moderate provisions of the 1908 Act up to date. The Schedule includes bodies which were not in existence then and which obviously ought to be considered now. Secondly, by making impossible those abuses which may occasionally be practised by local councils and which can be denned with sufficient clarity for us to be able to deal with the matter by legislation. We have done that in the Bill. Thirdly, I think that the debates on the Bill will have helped to make clear to all those who engage in local government what is expected of them in the way of willingness to accept publicity, willingness to seek good relations with the Press.
Let us hope that all the parties concerned, the public, local councils and the Press, take the opportunities which the Bill offers them.

2.14 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), not only on the introduction of this Bill but on the manner in which it has been piloted to its Third Reading. I think we all want to extend our congratulations to her on having done a fine job.
I think that, perhaps, revelations which during discussion of the Bill have been made about what has been happening in different parts of the country were long overdue, and the Bill does not, perhaps, go far enough to do away with all those things which have been said to be taking place in different parts of the country. Nevertheless, the Bill is on the right road.
In my constituency, the local authority, of which I am a member, has always brought out excellent minutes. Minutes running to sixty or seventy pages go out every month to the national Press and to the local Press, and those minutes cover almost in detail the work of the council. In addition, the minutes are put in the public library for everyone to see, and any public bodies in the locality which request copies of the minutes have them submitted to them. This is done not as a result of the discussions which have taken place on this Bill. This has gone on for as long as I have been associated with the authority, and, indeed, since before then, and even


when there were paper restrictions we put up notices outside die town hall itself.
There are, however, some things which are not of the same importance to all of us. Whilst it is perfectly true, as has been indicated in some statements made during discussions of the Bill, that there are some authorities which have been described as vile, and as having so much to hide that they have deliberately kept the Press out, yet it may be that there are some authorities which have felt matters to be private to such a degree that they very sincerely have looked upon them in that way, and in an entirely different way from that in which some of us have looked at them.
One thing is quite certain, and we have got to toe perfectly clear about it— that the right which the Press will now have as a result of the Bill does not necessarily mean that the Press will report all matters concerning the councils' work. What the Press reports will be very largely determined by what the Press considers its readers want and what will maintain or improve circulations. So we ought not to expect too much from the Bill in that direction.
Everyone hopes that the Bill is going to succeed in inducing more of the public to go to council meetings and council committee meetings, as well as the Press, but one of the real difficulties is the lack of accommodation in many of the town halls for the admittance of either the Press or the public. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is on the Government Front Bench today, because I would tell him that I am perfectly convinced that there are a number of authorities, who, while they welcome this Bill, also appreciate the difficulties associated with the provision of the necessary accommodation. It may be that many of them will have to make applications for improvements to town halls in order to enable them to provide the accommodation. I hope that if and when they do the Minister will be generous in approving schemes and the finance which will be required for the necessary works.
In conclusion, I again express my congratulations to the hon. Member for Finchley. I feel that it is all for the good in a democratic society that more and

more opportunities are extended to the public to hear all that is going on.

2.20 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: I rise for one reason only, and that is to commend the Third Reading of the Bill to the House. I should like to thank all of those who have been associated with me in preparing and getting the Bill to this stage. I have been at the receiving end of the congratulations, but it should be made quite clear that this has been a combined effort. In particular, I should like to thank the sponsors of the Bill, who stood with me through thick and thin.
I should also like to thank all members of the Standing Committee, some of whom on my own side under extreme provocation endured the tortures of silence, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), who treated us to a mid-weekly edition of "Reynolds' News". Now that the Committee stage is over, hon. Members will have to contend only with the Sunday edition of the newspaper. I should like to thank the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary for the kindness extended to me by them and their Department and the way in which they have helped me at every turn. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading very shortly.

2.21 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: I now rise to complete the credit titles and congratulate most warmly my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on her achievement. This has proved a delicate and contentious Measure, perhaps not ideally suited for a first venture into legislation, but the House will remember from all the stages of the Bill the cogent, charming, lucid and composed manner of my hon. Friend. I am sure that we must all hope that this will not be her last venture into legislation, and we must hope it all the more because she has had such concentrated experience of legislation with this Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said on Second Reading that the Bill would not have been the method he would have chosen to deal with this problem and he foresaw that a number of improvements would have to be made in Committee. These improvements have been made and the Bill comes to us now very much


amended. Nevertheless, the Bill provides a number of definite improvements on existing legislation.
First, the public now for the first time has a general right to attend council meetings. Secondly, the schedule of bodies to which the public has been admitted has been brought up-to-date. Thirdly, provision for extending the schedule has been included in the Bill. Fourthly, the conditions which allow a public body temporarily to exclude the public have been revised and redefined. Fifthly, one particular device for evading the law by going into committee has been prohibited. Sixthly, the Press is to be given advance notice of all meetings and, as has been said, in some cases documents for business to be transacted at meetings open to them, and the Press is to be given certain facilities for taking reports. Seventhly, by an Amendment passed today, radio and television organisations are brought into line with the treatment given to the Press.
These are all definite improvements in legislation for which my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley can rightly take credit. The subject has not been an easy one for legislation and the whole House realises that the Bill seeks to do no more than lay down the minimum. The tenor of speeches made today shows clearly that in the view of the House the minimum is not enough. I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend on Second Reading said that he intended to pursue with local authority associations a code of conduct to set standards in this matter. He will be discussing this with the local authority associations and, of course, he will consult the Press at the same time, because the code of conduct is, as it were, a complement to the Bill.
The majority of local authorities already enjoy good relations with the Press. There is no reason why the Bill should affect these good relations. It should serve, however, a useful purpose in giving a sharp reminder to the few back-sliding authorities that they have to keep the public informed of actions taken on the public's behalf. I hope very much that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CORPORATE BODIES' CONTRACTS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

2.23 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As the House will be aware, the Bill implements the eighth Report of the Law Reform Committee. It is supported by all three parties in the House, one of which is, however, absent today, and has very wide support outside the House. It would be less than courteous if, in moving its Third Reading, I did not express my gratitude to all those on both sides of the House who have supported me and helped me with the passage of the Bill so far.
If the Bill finally comes through Parliament it may benefit incorporated charities, local authorities, city guild companies, universities, foreign corporations active in the United Kingdom, building societies, colleges, and schools. The list is very long. I hope that the House will think it a useful Measure and, as it is a non-partisan Measure, that a proper use has been made of private Members' time, especially if one draws No. 20 in the Ballot.
I should like to think that what the Law Reform Committee called "a medieval rule" can be in due time abolished by this Measure. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn went a great deal further when he said that the present rule was a "relic of barbarous antiquity." At any rate, the Bill is an attempt to light a dark corner. I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on his choice of subject and on what looks like being success in bringing the Bill on to the Statute Book. I should also like to congratulate those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported it and added their names to it.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member has said about the contents of


the Bill. I note with pleasure, as I am sure we all do in the House, that effect is being given to an obviously good proposal of the law Reform Committee. Speaking for myself, and, I am sure, for everyone else in the House, I think it rather a pity that we cannot more often give effect to these non-controversial proposals, the working out of which represents a good deal of trouble by busy professional men whose sole object is to simplify and modernise the law and get rid of the unnecessary difficulties and obsolete hindrances which it still contains.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Consideration of Clauses 1 to 8 postponed till after consideration of the new Clauses standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Nabarro.— [Mr. Nabarro.]

New Clause.—(SAFETY STANDARDS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF OIL HEATERS.)

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for requiring oil heaters of such class or description as may be specified in the regulations, or any component part of an oil heater, being a part of such class or description as may be so specified, to comply with such standards of safety as in his opinion are appropriate to reduce or prevent the risk of fire;
(b) for requiring oil heaters of such class or description as may be so specified to bear by means of such a label or such other means as may be so specified, instructions on such matters as may be prescribed as to the working and use of the oil heaters;
(c) for any other matter for which regulations are authorised under this Act.

(2) Regulations made under this section may contain different provisions for different classes or descriptions of oil heaters or component parts of oil heaters and, in the case of regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection, may prescribe the means for ascertaining for the purposes of this Act whether any oil heaters or component parts comply with the requirements of the regulations.—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.29 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I think that some explanation is due to the Committee at the outset for the reason behind the substitution of this lengthy Clause, which bears the names of several hon. Members from both sides of the Committee, for the original Clause in the Bill, and also of the similar proposals to follow as set out on the Notice Paper.
The Committee will remember that the Bill was read the First time on 15th March and a Second time on 1st April, without debate on that occasion. Since


1st April we have had the benefit of two important publications. The first is the interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, Cmnd. 1011, which appeared after the Second Reading and in the early days of April. The second is the British Standards Specification 3300, which appeared a few days later. Those two documents have a profound influence on the legislation which my hon. Friends and I seek to achieve.
Technically, the new Clause is equivalent to Clause 5 in the Bill. Apart from the drafting, the only material differences are as follows. First, the new Clause says:
The Secretary of State may …
instead of "shall"—
… by regulations …
That is in accordance with general practice, as, for example, in Section 5 (1) of the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act, 1952, and is generally considered constitutionally appropriate.
Moreover, it would be inconsistent to require the Secretary of State to make regulations and, at the same time, make those regulations subject to annulment under Clause 6 (2). The new Clause is particularly important because it confers powers for the making of regulations to give the minimum standards of proficiency and safety in respect of all new oil-burning appliances manufactured and distributed in Great Britain after the date of the coming into effect of such regulations.
The scope of the regulations is expressed in subsection (1, a) of the new Clause in rather more general terms than in Clause 5 (1), which the new Clause is designed to replace. Subsection (1, b) of the new Clause gives an additional power to require oil heaters to bear labels containing prescribed safety instructions, and I shall justify that before I sit down. Subsection (3) of Clause 5 becomes subsection (5) of the new Clause. This is merely the removal of a subsection from one Clause to another.
It will be recalled that the Home Secretary has no powers at present, and until this legislation reaches the Statute Book, to prescribe these minimum standards of proficiency and safety in regard to domestic oil-burning appliances. Those powers will be con-

ferred on him by the new Clause and such regulations as he may decide to make under it.
I should say a word, in this connection, about the recommendations made in the documents to which I alluded a few moments ago. The British Standards Specification 3300, published about a month ago, is particularly comprehensive and penetrating in all the technical requirements which it would impose for reaching a higher standard of proficiency and safety in these oil-burning appliances. But a British Standards specification is only optional upon manufacturers. Whereas this specification replaces a much earlier one, British Standards Specification 2049 published in 1953, and notwithstanding the higher standards in the recent publication, it is still only optional upon manufacturers and it cannot pretend to cover the contingency of imported oil heaters and burners of various descriptions.
The purpose of the new Clause is to make it obligatory upon manufacturers to conform to the regulations, and, having regard to the hideous toll of accidents and the widespread fires which have resulted from hazards caused, in the main, by these domestic portable oil heaters, I think that the Committee would agree with me, unanimously I believe, in feeling that there must be an obligation by Statute to impose these standards and that the matter should not be left on an optional basis.
The requirements of the regulations in the context of the British Standards Specification would be very comprehensive. They would cover, for example, all contingencies arising from the three main hazards with these oil heaters to which I alluded when being granted permission by the House to bring in the Bill on 15th March. I summarise these today, for the sake of brevity, in saying that the hazards fall into three groups: first, severe draughts causing flaring of these oil burners and heaters, which is a major cause of fire; secondly, the overturning of oil heaters; and, thirdly, corrosion of the fuel container, which causes the liquid fuel to escape, with grave fire hazard when the burner is alight, and, in conjunction with it, the method of fuel injection. If the regulations—I feel confident that they


will—follow the high standards prescribed in British Standards Specification 3300, those hazards will very largely be subdued.
I made special reference a few moments ago to marking, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) is particularly interested in this topic I should make my intentions perfectly clear. There was nothing in the original Clause 5 which would exclude in any way the possibility of the Home Secretary including within the scope of his regulations prescribed methods of marking to last the length of life of the appliance itself, but I thought it advisable to refer here specifically to marking or, in other words, the labels on new appliances distributed, and that will find a place later in the Bill.
I think that "marking" will cover a wide variety of requirements, and I summarise them today by saying that the manufacturer's name or trade mark would appear on the label; the manufacturer's type number similarly; the number of the British Standards specification to which the appliance conforms, No. 3300 in this instance; a warning against the use of petrol instead of kerosene, or, in other words, the requirement that suitable fuel should be employed; a warning against carrying the appliance when alight; a warning about the need for adequate ventilation; a warning about protection from draughts; and a warning against placing the appliance where it can be knocked over. All of these are matters of major importance in connection with marking and the affixing of a label within the requirements of the regulations to which I have referred.
I turn for a few moments to the interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, published a few weeks ago as Command 1011, which is generally referred to, from the name of the Chairman, as the Molony Report. In paragraphs 22–27 inclusive there are valuable comments upon the hazards arising from the sale of sub-standard oil appliances. While I do not wish to weary the Committee by dealing with each point to which the Report refers, I should mention that it makes a special reference to the importance of labels being affixed, which it alleges was not

contained in the original Clause 5 which the new Clause is designed to replace. In fact, the regulations under the original Clause 5 could have covered the point of affixing labels, but I think that it is so important, especially in view of what the Molony Committee has wisely said in this context, that we ought to be quite specific in the Bill.
Finally, I will say a word about imports. The need for an obligatory standard is undoubtedly to seal the gap that could otherwise be created by substandard heaters being imported into the country, and though there is no reference in the Clause to the word "imported", it will appear later. I merely wish to make it perfectly clear at this stage that we are dealing in this Measure, and in this case, with regulations governing the sale of these heaters, and, therefore, almost overwhelmingly imported heaters, as they would in the majority of cases have to be resold, would be covered by the new Clause.
It will be seen that the Clause is supported by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, and I hope, therefore, that it will commend itself without dissension to the Committee.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I beg to second the Motion.
I commend the Clause to the Committee as being one which provides a practical and sensible means of enforcing the very necessary regulations that we all hope will be made to ensure the safety of oil heaters.
I do not wish to appear in any way alarmist, or to frighten those who are the owners or users of oil heaters that do not comply with the British Standards specification so recently introduced. Having seen certain experiments made on a number of well-known types of oil heaters, and the great rapidity with which they flare up and leak their paraffin when subjected to draughts, I am quite certain that the Committee will believe me when I say that some form of regulations is required so that the safety of people can be increased and they may be saved some of the very great dangers to which they have been subjected in the past.
It would not be right to ask this Committee to go into every detail of what the regulations should be, what draught


speeds they should be able to withstand, and the exact nature of the construction of heaters. In this type of matter, I am quite sure that I am right in saying that it is usual for the Committee, when considering a new Bill, to be quite content to leave these matters to the appropriate Secretary of State. It would also be quite wrong to anticipate what these regulations will be, but they must, of course, cover the three matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred and, above all, the danger of flaring up when subject to draught, in some cases, quite a small draught, as well as the danger of spilling fuel and catching fire when overturned. Indeed, there is also the fact that they must be made more than usually difficult to overturn, and they should also provide for the proper and not overhasty or unskilled design and construction of these heaters in the first place.
I am sure that the manufacturers, as much as everybody else, will welcome the regulations—provided they comply with them, and, of course, they will— as giving their products a better name. greater popularity, and, I am sure, greater use throughout the country. This new Clause will enable regulations to be made to cover these matters, as well as the fixing of labels and instructions referred to by the Molony Committee, to deal with the proper use of materials and the putting together of those materials in the construction of the heaters, and the use of such devices as will enable them to withstand draughts and matters of that sort.
It would be quite wrong to weary the Committee with the full nature of the British Standards specification referred to. It will, I know, be carefully studied by the Home Secretary and his advisers. One knows that British Standards specifications have no legal authority at all. but that everybody treats them, and quite rightly so, as being of the greatest importance, and treats them with very great respect.
I do not want to take up an undue amount of time, because one looks at the clock and at the number of Amendments before the Committee and hopes that they will all be dealt with before four o'clock. I should like to express the hope that the new Clause will

receive the Committee's welcome and approbation.

Mr. Albert Evans: I wish to say a word or two in support of the new Clause. I am sure that the Committee would entirely agree that some action should be taken to lay down general standards of safety in the manufacture of these oil heaters, and I am sure we all agree about that.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) upon his intention. As I understand, the operation of the new Clause is dependent upon action by the Secretary of State, and unless the Secretary of State decides to come to the House with regulations this new Clause would be inoperative. What we are saying to the right hon. Gentleman in this new Clause is that there is obviously a need for regulations, and inviting him to introduce them. I hope that this short discussion will induce the Secretary of State to act as promptly as he may and lay the necessary regulations before the House.

2.45 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson: I should like to say a word in welcoming and supporting this new Clause, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has moved in his usual able and eloquent fashion, and also in appreciation of the support of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) who, I understand, had such a distressing experience in his own constituency.
Perhaps we welcome this new Clause so much because, when these fires and accidents occur with these heaters, they are of a particularly terrifying and disastrous character, and because it is the more helpless sections of our community, children and old people, who are affected by them. Whereas those of us who are interested in this question of home safety tend to rely on exhortation and encouragement, and only wish to resort to legislation when it is absolutely necessary, we feel that in this instance legislation of this character is demanded. I think that I can speak both on behalf of myself and the other members of the Parliamentary Home Safety Committee in welcoming my hon. Friend's new Clause.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): This Bill was not debated on Second Reading, but I have no intention of trying to make the speech that I might have made on that occasion. As this is a substantive Clause, under which my right hon. Friend will make regulations, I should say, of course, that the Government welcome the Bill and will give it their support.
Indeed, they have done that by moving a Money Resolution and in helping my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in drafting the Amendments to the Bill. In case any hon. Member may think that my hon. Friend has changed his mind in any great respect since the introduction of the Bill, I should say that most of the Amendments are designed simply to bring the Bill into the commonly adopted form for Measures of this kind.
Since the introduction of the Bill, the very important Molony Committee has reported, and the provisions of the new Clause was its principal recommendation. I congratulate my hon. Friend on anticipating the Committee in that respect. One point which my hon. Friend did not make, but which perhaps should be made, is that throughout the consideration of the Bill and the drafting of the Amendments consultation has taken place with the interested bodies, particularly with the oil appliances manufacturers' associations, which, I understand, subscribe fully to the Bill and to the Amendments which are being made to it.
On behalf of the Home Office, I must say 'that that organisation has been most co-operative and most anxious to meet the requirements of the Molony Committee and of the Report to which my hon. Friend referred. It has, in fact, already anticipated in part this Bill and the regulations to be adopted, in that the prototypes for the coming year are in accordance with B.S.I. standards to which my hon. Friend referred.
The only point which I think I should make to the Committee is on the question of the regulations, because, of course, the words used in the new Clause are that the Secretary of State may make regulations. There is no significance in the change from "shall" to "may", as the right hon. Member for South Shields

(Mr. Ede) knows. It is standard practice, and we have debated that point on the Offices Bill. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to make regulations which will conform approximately to British Standards Specification No. 3300, but there may be some points of variation, as B.S.I, standards do not necessarily lend themselves exactly to regulations. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to make these regulations and once again to do so in consultation with the trade and interested parties. As soon as the Bill has made some progress, those negotiations and consultations will take place. There is no desire in any way to hold back on this legislation, and the sooner we can make progress the better.
The only other new point is that about the labelling and instructions. That arises again from the Molony Committee, and it is a very welcome addition to the Clause. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster for responding to the various proposals to modify his Bill in some respects, and particularly in this Clause, which is now in a very workable form.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROHIBITION OF SALE, ETC., OF OIL HEATERS OR COMPONENT PARTS NOT COMPLYING WITH REGULATIONS.)

(1) If any person in the course of a business sells, or lets under a hire-purchase agreement or on hire, or has in has possession for the purpose of selling or letting, an oil heater and either—

(a) the oil heater, or a component part of it, does not comply with any standard of safety prescribed for the class or description of oil heater, or as the case may be, component part, to which the oil heater or component part belongs; or
(b) the oil heater does not bear instructions in compliance with the requirements of any regulations made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (b) of section (Safety standards and instructions for use of oil heaters) of this Act,

he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guilty of an offence.


(2) If any person, in the course of a business, sells, or has in his possession for the purpose of selling, a component part intended for. but not embodied in, an oil heater and the component part does not comply with the standards of safety prescribed for the class or description of component part to which


it belongs, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) of this section if he proves—

(a) that the sale or letting was carried out, or he was in possession of the oil heater as the case may be, as the agent of a person who was not acting in the course of a business or as the servant of such an agent; or
(b) he reasonably believed that the oil heater would not be used in Great Britain; or
(c) in the case of a letting on hire, the letting was incidental to the letting of premises; or
(d) in the case of a letting under a hire-purchase agreement he had at no time possession of the oil heater and only became the owner thereof at the time of entering into the agreement; or
(e) in the case of any letting, the letting was lawful at the time the hirer or the hirer's predecessor in title obtained possession of the oil heater;

and a person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) of this section if he proves that the sale was carried out, or as the case may be, he was in possession of the component part, as the agent of a person who was not acting in the course of a business, or as the servant of such an agent or that he reasonably believed that the component part would not be used in Great Britain.


(4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (l) of this section or subsection (2) thereof in relation to an oil heater or component part if he proves that he had reasonable cause to believe that the oil heater or, as the case may he, component part, complied with the standards of safety prescribed for the class or description of oil heater or component part to which it belongs.
(5) Regulations under this Act may contain such provisions as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient for authorising the sale, letting or possession of oil heaters or component parts manufactured before the coming into operation of the regulations, or for authorising the sale or letting of oil heaters or component parts for such purposes as may be specified in the regulations, and a person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this section if he proves that the sale, letting or possession of the heater was authorised by those regulations, or of an offence under subsection (2) of this section if he proves that the sale or possession of the component part was so authorised.—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is the equivalent of Clause 1 of the Bill. Apart from drafting, it differs from Clause 1 in only

one or two material respects. It does not, as Clause 1 does, refer to imports. The reasons are that a prohibition of imports is not considered to be necessary, a prohibition of sales by itself, I am advised, being technically sufficient.
It may be said, of course, that from time to time heaters are bought by British people abroad and brought into the country individually and used in those people's homes. I am advised that that happens in so few cases that it would be almost impossible to provide for it by legislation and that, in any event, it would create certain difficulties with the Customs. What I am concerned to do is to prevent foreign manufactured oil burners and heaters from being imported into the country for resale, and I am advised that the new Clause would prevent any substandard heater—that is a heater which does not reach the requirements of the regulations about standards of proficiency and safety—being resold.
Subsection (1, b) adds the offence of selling a heater which does not conform to the labelling requirements, recommended in the Interim Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, to which I referred earlier, and which are now indispensable in the arrangements which we propose to make. The new Clause deals separately with the sale of components for oil heaters and burners, and that is substantially a matter of drafting with which I shall deal later.
Subsection (4) gives a person prosecuted under the Bill for selling a defective oil heater or component the defence that he had reasonable cause to believe that it complied with prescribed safety standards.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the hon. Member deal with subsection (3, b)? I know that it is in the original Bill and it now appears in virtually the same form. But why is it not an offence to want to set someone on fire in Northern Ireland or France while it is in Great Britain?

Mr. Nabarro: I will deal with that later. I will first complete what I was saying about subsection (4).
The practical effect of subsection (4) is that a retailer of an oil heater or burner will normally be secure from prosecution if he sells in good faith a heater which, for example, bears the seal of approval


of a reputable body. That seems reasonable, because an ordinary ironmonger cannot be expected, other than from the details shown on the label, to ascertain whether the heater which he is offering for sale does or does not reach the required standards. On the other hand, if, for example, a manufacturer gives a worthless guarantee, he would be culpable at once and would be prosecuted under the Bill and subject to the penalties which it sets out.
Subsection (5) of the new Clause is equivalent to Clause 5 (3) of the original Bill. The drafting change is made because it seems more appropriate for that matter to be dealt with as an exception to the general prohibition to the sale of heaters which do not conform to the prescribed safety standards. Generally, it seeks to prevent sub-standard and dangerous heaters finding their way to the market. I was particularly interested in the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) earlier, for what I am about to say precisely fits the point he made.
On 18th March, 1960, the Daily Herald reported:
Three more children die in a fire. And again the killer is a drip-feed oil heater.
The Daily Herald went on to say:
We took Mr. Evans on a tour of heartbreak house, where children wept, hysterical mothers sobbed and even men cried.
After hearing first-hand accounts of the 29 minutes of terror he stared in shocked disbelief at the charred shell that was once the home of Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Chung and said: 'The Government must act.'
'This is the third oil heater fire in ten days'.
This was a disaster in a crowded quarter of the hon. Member's constituency, not dissimilar to the disaster at Ware in Hertfordshire where, similarly, three small children were similarly burned to death through a similar cause. The contents of the second new Clause are absolutely indispensible to preventing the sale of substandard oil heaters.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred to subsection (3), which says:
A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) of this section if he proves—
(a) that the sale or letting was carried out"—

Mr. Hale: I was referring to subsection (3, b)—
he reasonably believed that the oil heater would not be used in Great Britain.

Mr. Nabarro: I believe that that is lifted from earlier legislation of a similar character. Speaking from memory, I believe that the same words appear in the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act, 1952. In the course of the ensuing speeches, I will look up the reason for that. I am not absolutely certain why it is there, but there are very respectable precedents for it. The 1952 Act sought to do something similar to what we are trying to do, but in that case it was the adding of fireguards to heating appliances, especially to prevent children's clothing from catching fire. I will look into the point and hope to be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is quite right in attempting to place the responsibility for the distribution of heaters which do not comply with the safety standards upon the sellers of those heaters. I wonder whether he has given any thought to the considerable stock of heaters in the hands of distributors which probably will not comply with the regulations when the House has approved them. I understand that the number of defective heaters which have been manufacturered and may be in the possession of distributors is considerable. It has been said that 3 million to 4 million of these heaters are either in use or in the distributive channels.
It is difficult under the Bill to do anything about those in use, but we should face the problem which exists of dealing with those heaters which remain in the hands of wholesalers and retailers. Presumably if the new Clause is accepted it will be the responsibility of those who have these heaters which will be defective under the regulations to attend to those defects and to put the heaters in a state which complies with the regulations. I hope that one of the promoters of the Bill will say something about that aspect.
It will be seen from subsection (3, c) that it will be a legitimate defence
 in the case of a letting on hire 


if it is shown that
the letting was incidental to the letting of premises".
It seems to me that that may let out people upon whom we should seek to place responsibility. If a person knowingly lets premises in which there is a defective oil heater, I think that he is showing more than negligence. I think that the hon. Member for Kidderminster should seek to amend the Clause to make it incumbent upon a person who lets premises to ensure that those premises do not contain a defective oil heater for use. Will the hon. Member consider that and perhaps put forward Amendments to cover the point? He could very well improve the Bill by placing an onus upon a person who lets premises to see to it that there is not a defective oil heater for use in those premises.

Mr. Doughty: I beg to second the Motion.
I have considered the Clause with some care, because the penalty Clause in any Ball is the important Clause. Without it no Bill would have any effect. I recommend the Clause to the Committee because it places the liability fairly and squarely upon those upon whom it should be placed—the persons responsible for the sale of an oil heater which does not comply with the requirements. The Clause also applies to the component parts, which may be just as dangerous as the heater itself. It seems to me that the Clause covers the dangers which we shall have in mind when the House passes the Bill.
May I deal with two points which have been made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans)? The first concerns the phrase in subsection (3, b),
that the oil heater would not be used in Great Britain".
I do not say that this is the reason, but a possible reason for this provision is that foreign countries may have their own regulations. The oil heater might be made for sale abroad and it might comply with the foreign regulations or those of Northern Ireland whereas for some technical reason associated with those regulations it may not comply with the English regulations.

Mr. Hale: Various countries have various moral standards. In relation to anything which is made a penal offence, it has always been our rule that if a foreigner commits an offence here, he is subject to our laws, and if we commit an offence in a foreign country, we are subject to their laws. I believe 'that this paragraph weakens the Bill and makes more difficulties without having any advantages.

Mr. Doughty: A similar situation arises in respect of lights on motor cars. Certain heights and widths are laid down in different countries, and car manufacturers do not necessarily comply with British standards when the cars are to be sold abroad. It may be the same in this case. Countries abroad may have different requirements, different standards, and, for all I know, may use different kerosene. We therefore want to leave manufacturers free not to comply with some aspects of British standards though they will have to comply with the standards laid down by the countries to which the heaters are exported.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West asked about paragraph (c). The property which is let furnished with all the furniture and fittings is not the property contemplated in the paragraph. We are trying to prohibit the sale or letting on hire purchase. If somebody lets a house for a week or a year complete with all its contents, it will be hard to come down on him if among the things that were let with the house, such as a grand piano, a sofa, and beds, there was an oil heater which did not comply with the standards. That is not the type of case with which we are endeavouring to deal.
I do not want to go through all the terms of the Clause. I hope that it will provide the necessary teeth when the Bill is passed by the Committee.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: I intervene briefly on two specific points. First, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said that heaters bought abroad which did not match our standards might be used in Great Britain. He mentioned specifically the question of heaters bought in Northern Ireland. When the Bill becomes an Act it will not apply to


Northern Ireland, but legislation there will shortly follow the legislation here.
The second point is about oil heaters in the pipeline so to speak. I understand that all reputable oil heater manufacturers have given assurances that they will do their utmost to get in as quickly as possible oil heaters at present out for sale. They will be brought in and modified at cost price. That should encourage all the owners of oil heaters which do not at present match up to the necessary standards to send their heaters back for modification.
There is bound to be a time lag, but I have been assured, and I have every reason to believe, that every reputable manufacturer will make this a real issue and is determined that no heater is sold which does not match up to the new standards.

Mr. George Darling: Subsection (1) says:
If any person in the course of a business sells, or lets under a hire purchase agreement …
As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said, this will catch everybody who makes an appliance, or sells it wholesale or retail. I wonder, however, whether another group of people will come into this business who may not be caught.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said that there are about 3 million oil heaters, some of which would not conform to these new standards. This may encourage some of the "wide boys" who happen to be floating around our population these days to go to houses, particularly those in country districts, and ask the housewife whether she has an oil heater, and say to her, "Oh, no, this is now illegal. You ought not to have it". He will then undertake to carry out some modifications, not the kind of modifications to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) referred, which I understand will be carried out by manufacturers, but modifications which will still not bring the heater up to the required standard.
If that sort of thing happens the person who is doing this dirty business will not be caught by the word "sells", because he will not be buying or selling equipment. He will probably undertake

the operation on the basis of a service charge, or something of that kind. I have often wondered whether we covered this point in some of our other legislation. It happened in the case of safety helmets for motor-cyclists. Some of us tried to have the word "manufactures" inserted as well as the words
Sells, or lets under a hire-purchase agreement …
in the Road Traffic Bill, but we were told that "sells" would cover "manufactures".
I am wondering whether, between now and Report, the right hon. Gentleman would consider this point and see whether some other word, such as "rebuilds", might be inserted. I do not know what the legal word would be, but we want to ensure that if any operations of this kind are undertaken we shall be able to catch people who are deliberately defrauding the housewife by purporting to put heaters into proper shape, according to the standards to be laid down.
I congratulate whoever drafted the Clause for including the provision contained in subsection (1, b), which at last ensures that these heaters will have instructions for their use attached to them. It will be remembered that when the Consumers Advisory Council tested some of the oil heaters, at about the same time as all this activity was getting under way, it found that although the previous British Standard recommended that information should be provided and attached to the heater, in most cases it was not so provided or attached. I am glad that this recommendation is now being given statutory force.

Mr. Nabarro: The British Standards Specification No. 3300, on page 6, says:
Instructions for the safe use of an appliance shall be supplied with the appliance. They shall state that the appliance shall use kerosene (paraffin) and shall state the average fuel consumption in pints/hour or hours/gallon. A warning shall be included against the use of fuels other than kerosene (paraffin). Any special precautions necessary for the safe use and operation of the appliance shall be included.
There is also a separate label requirement. I feel confident that the regulations eventually drafted and laid before this House will at least embody the standards laid down in BSS 3300. I am sure that the hon. Member's point will be met.
I agree that where these appliances have been in use for some time, people suffering apprehensions as to their safety may desire to have them modified. In many instances they will be old appliances, which do not readily lend themselves to modification by the manufacturers, and nefarious activities might develop. So far, however, we have not found any means of dealing with heaters in use, except for those which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) referred to as being in the pipeline—in other words, in the channels of wholesale and retail distribution but unsold to the consumer. Those the manufacturers are taking back.
If I may correct the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) on one point—the number of heaters in this category is not 3 million but 12 million.

Mr. Darling: There are 3 million of the drip-feed type.

Mr. Nabarro: There are 12 million of all kinds, and we are seeking to cover all new oil appliances, whether of the old convector type or the drip-feed type. I can assure the hon. Member that between now and Report I will consider this point together with my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary, in order to see if we can provide for it, although I must say that I am not very sanguine about it.

Mr. Vosper: I know that the question of imports has worried some hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is quite correct in saying that the Clause as now drafted covers imports. The reason for drafting the Clause in this way is that it provides a more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. To try to catch imports via the Customs authorities would be a very difficult matter from the point of view of enforcement. Further, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is anxious not to set a precedent in that respect. The only possible imports that could now come through are those purchased abroad by individuals, who then bring them home. Such private imports would be difficult to catch under any form of Bill or regulations. I would only hope that anyone who purchases an oil heater abroad would have it inspected by the

local authority in the country before using it.
3.15 p.m.
The other point to which I wish to refer is subsection (3), which has worried several hon. Members. I think I am right in saying that all these provisions— paragraphs (a) to (e)—are taken from the Fireguards Bill, 1952, which was introduced by my hon. Friend. They follow that Measure exactly, although it is possible that they may require a certain amount of reconsideration.
I would like to look again at paragraph (a), which is designed as a safeguard for auctioneers who are not held to be responsible under the Bill. I am advised, however, that there may be a loophole or way of abuse there which should be safeguarded. Equally I am advised that owing to the change in hire-purchase arrangements paragraph (d) might need rewording. If it does, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be willing to incorporate an Amendment on Report.
Regarding the quite proper intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) was quite right in saying that these are detailed regulations which would be applicable in this country but might not at the moment be applicable in other countries, and manufacturers exporting might be in some difficulty. However, we will have regard to the point raised.
In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) concerning paragraph (c), may I say that I appreciate his concern about that, but I think that it would be difficult, if only for reasons of inforcement, to cover what he has in mind in that respect. The hon. Gentleman also referred, of course, to stocks at present in the shops. As I think he knows, sales of these oil drip-feed heaters has virtually ceased since the danger became public, but the manufacturers, as my hon. Friend has just said, have arranged to convert these stocks to accord with British Standards Specification No. 3300. In fact, they are arranging to do that during the summer months, so I hope that sales will recommence in the autumn and will accord as near as possible to the regulations to be introduced.

Mr. A. Evans: Does it cover all the manufacturers?

Mr. Vosper: That is the important point. It covers those who are members of the Oil Appliance Manufacturers' Association. There are at the moment a few manufacturers outside that Association, but I would hope that they, too, would conform to this point.
As far as those appliances in the hands of individual people are concerned, the manufacturers have made arrangements to have them modified, but it is disappointing how few people have availed themselves of that facility, possibly owing to the expense involved. A comparatively small proportion have come forward and asked for the modification to be made. That is something which cannot be carried out by legislation or regulation, but perhaps this is an opportunity once again to repeat to those who have drip-feed oil heaters to have a look at them and to suggest to them that they should be modified. I support the Clause, of course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXPENSES.)

There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Committee will remember that the Money Resolution was provided by my right hon. Friend and was agreed to yesterday evening. This Clause, entitled "Expenses", is in the usual form. It deals with any increase in the Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant resulting from expenditure by local authorities and its enforcement under the Bill.

Mr. Reader Harris: I wonder whether, between now and the Report stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will look again at this new Clause. Naturally, I support it, but I do

not like the wording, as I have been caught out by similar wording before. We recently dealt with the Offices Bill in Standing Committee. I then moved a whole series of Amendments giving to fire brigades and fire authorities duties and rights of inspection and entry similar to the rights given to fire brigades and fire authorities by the Factories Acts. My Amendments were not called, on the ground that they were outside the scope of a Money Resolution almost identical with this one.
In the Bill as at present drawn—I do not wish now to refer to the next new Clause on the Order Paper—certain duties are laid on local authorities, and it may wall be found in practice that the right and proper people to perform them are the fire authorities, and that the actual department—even of a county borough, which is a fire authority under the definition in the Bill—is the fire department.
On the occasion to which I refer I was informed by the Public Bill Office that my Amendments were oat of order on the grounds that the Government contribution to the cost of a fire brigade was by means of block grant and not by way of rate-deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant. It seems to me, therefore, that as the Bill is now drawn the fire brigade department is expressly excluded by the wording of the Clause. That is not good enough, because I am sure that, in practice, we shall find that the fire brigade is the right body to deal with this.
My hon. Friend will remember how he and I in 1959, during the passage of the Factories Bill, made great sport of the unfortunate weights and measures inspectors in local authorities, who knew nothing of fire prevention and who had the duty of inspecting premises for means of escape in case of fire. The great point then made was that the right people in the local authority were those in the fire brigade department, although we recognised that Parliament could not possibly lay down who was to do the job. I do not want to see words accepted that will exclude the right people from doing the job.

Mr. A. Evans: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask if it has occurred to him that the fire authority is the county authority?

Mr. Harris: Yes, that is quite true.

Mr. Evans: The county authority could, therefore, arrange for one of its inspectors to do the inspection, and for other aspects to be taken care of by the fire section of the county authority.

Mr. Harris: That is not quite the position, because the fire authorities are counties and county boroughs, but the definition in the Bill refers to a county borough and a county district, and not to a county. However, my point is that if this form of wording goes through it is possible that even the fire department of a county borough could not be given the work.

Mr. Doughty: I merely wish to say that I support the new Clause.

Mr. Nabarro: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. R. Harris) and I were closely identified on a similar point during the passage of the Factories Bill but, with respect, that was a matter of escape from premises in the event of fire. We are here discussing appliances that will be appropriately marked for identification pur-

New Clause.—(INSPECTION AND TESTING OF OIL HEATERS AND COMPONENT PARTS.)

(1) An officer of a local authority authorised by them in writing in that behalf may, subject to the provisions of this section, on producing if so required his authority, inspect an oil heater for the purpose of determining whether—


5
(a) it is an oil heater which, or any component part of which, is of a class or description to which the requirements of any regulations under this Act apply, and


(b) if it is such an oil heater, the oil heater, or any component part of it, complies with any such requirement as aforesaid,


10
and, subject as aforesaid and on producing if so required his authority, may inspect a component part intended for but not embodied in an oil heater, for the purpose of determining whether—



(a) it is a component part of a class or description to which the requirements of any regulations under this Act apply, and


15
(b) if it is such a component part, it complies with any such requirement as aforesaid.


20
(2) A local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, purchase an oil heater which, or any component part of which, is of a class or description to which any requirements of regulations under this Act apply, for the purpose of the carrying out of a test whether the oil heater, or component part, complies with any standard of safety prescribed for the class or description of oil heater or component part to which the oil heater or component part belongs, and a local authority may, subject as aforesaid, purchase a component part, intended for but not embodied in an oil heater, being a component part of a class or description to which any requirements of regulations under this Act apply, for the purpose of determining whether the component part complies with any standard of safety prescribed for the class or description of component part to which it belongs.


25
(3) Any such test as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection shall be carried out, at the expense of the local authority, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act, by such person or body as may be authorised by or under the regulations to carry out such a test.


30
(4) An officer of a local authority shall not by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, inspect an oil heater or component part, and a local authority shall not, by virtue of subsection (2) of this section, purchase an oil heater or component part, unless the oil heater or component part is kept on premises in the area of the authority for the purpose of being sold or let in the course of a business.


35
(5) Any person who wilfully obstructs any person in the exercise of his powers under subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

poses. Any local authority officer, without any particular skill in fire escape matters or fire fighting, will readily be able to ascertain whether a particular appliance does or does not conform with the Regulations, because the necessary details will be clearly set out on the label.

I shall, however, between now and Report, look into the rather technical point raised by my hon. Friend, which I clearly understand. I shall certainly have to take advice upon it, but I hope that he will accept the new Clause as drafted, at least for the time being.

Mr. Vosper: This Clause follows closely on the Money Resolution, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) is correct in his apprehensions, it would be the Money Resolution rather than this Clause that is at fault. I should like to hear what my hon. Friend has got to say on the next new Clause before I comment on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This proposed Clause is equivalent to Clause 2 of the Bill, but whereas Clause 2 would enable local authorities to inspect and test oil heaters, the new Clause will authorise local authorities only to inspect oil heaters and components for the purposes set out in subsection (4) and to purchase oil heaters and components for testing, but will require the actual testing to be done at the expense of the local authority only by authorised bodies which might or might not be within the compass of the local authority organisation itself.
My intention here is that a limited number of appropriately equipped laboratories, which might be provided by a few of the larger local authorities, or in other eventualities by entirely separate technical organisations, should be approved by the Home Secretary, and the local authorities who do not themselves possess approved testing facilities should send any heaters required to be tested to one of those laboratories.
I pause for a moment to say that the testing of oil heaters and burners is a very highly technical matter. There are in the country today only a few laboratories appropriately equipped to test them. I name the British Standards Institution Laboratory recently established, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and one or two of the large city authorities which might be able to undertake testing work of this kind. The intention is that my right hon. Friend would list those laboratories and then enable any local authorities in the country requiring an oil burner or heater to be tested to send them to one of those approved laboratories.
Subsection (4) of the new Clause has the effect of limiting the local authorities' power to inspect and purchase oil heaters to those on the premises of traders or manufacturers in the area of the local authority itself. It is expected that in practice the manufacturers or, where foreign heaters are imported, the importers in their own interests— because retailers will expect some warranty that the heaters which they are being asked to sell conform with the law—will themselves normally submit specimens of such heaters to the approved laboratories for testing purposes to which I referred.
Some understanding will have to be arrived at between them, the local authorities and the approved laboratories, under which a local authority before submitting a heater will inquire whether the same model has already been tested so that unnecessary duplication and testing will be avoided. That should not prove difficult, because many of these oil heaters are mass-produced and once a type has been approved by a laboratory it follows that any similar testing will be carried through as a matter of normal routine. Thus the amount of testing required to be done at the instance and expense of local authorities may well turn out to be very small and limited, though important. At the same time, the local authorities' power to have heaters tested will remain in the background as a valuable safeguard and insurance that due care is being taken to comply absolutely with the law.
I might add that this new Clause and its drafting has given rise to a great deal of anxiety among my hon. Friends and myself to try to find the highest common factor of agreement between all the interested parties in this Measure and also to deal with the highly technical aspect of this matter.
3.30 p.m.
We have arrived at the conclusion that the arrangements for enforcement set out in the new Clause are likely to be practical and satisfactory and to commend themselves to local authorities. They should provide a sufficient check to ensure compliance with the safety regulations. They should, I think, assure reasonable uniformity of enforcement. They will be applicable equally to manufactured oil appliances of British origin and of foreign origin.
Nevertheless, I readily confess that these conclusions are tentative only. The appropriate local authority associations are being consulted about the contents of the Clause, notably on the subject of enforcement. My present advice is that they are sympathetically inclined towards the general proposal but they have not yet had full time to consult all their constituent members. I conclude, therefore, by saying that the precise arrangements must remain open until Report. If there is any amendment necessary on this difficult technical matter of


testing these appliances, I will make it the subject of an appropriate Amendment later.

Mr. Doughty: I beg to second the Motion—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is not the first time that the hon. and learned Gentleman has used that expression. In fact, no seconder is required.

Mr. Doughty: In view of the time, Sir William, I will say no more.

Dr. D. Johnson: Is it your intention, Sir William, to call my Amendment? If not, I should like to speak on the Clause as a whole.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, it is the intention that the hon. Member's Amendment will be called in due course, after the Clause has been read a Second time.

Mrs. McLaughlin: This new Clause will be a very important part of a very important Bill. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said about looking at it again, if necessary, in considering the full details of its provisions which local authorities have not yet had time to study. There are, however, one or two points which must be made clear now before we accept the Clause and send it forward as part of the Bill.
British Standards Specification 3300 will be a compulsory standard and, as such, will be much more satisfactory than any of the voluntary ones we have had hitherto. Voluntary standards are not always acceptable to the public and sometimes they are not put across to the public as they should be. In 1957, a bulletin was issued by the Fire Offices Committee of the Fire Protection Association on the chief causes of fires caused by portable paraffin heaters. It was said in that bulletin that the chief causes of such fires are:
failure to follow the manufacturers' instructions; use of the heater in an unsuitable position; careless handling of paraffin, and use of inferior heaters. It is hoped that the following recommendations will assist users to avoid accidents.
In spite of that and other publicity, users did not avoid accidents, principally, I think, because they did not understand and were careless. I believe that the compulsory standard now instituted will make the public aware of the need to be careful.
In paragraph 24 of its Report, the Molony Committee says:
We think that having come this far"—
that is to say, with the new British Standard—
 there may be a risk that it will be assumed that recent action has covered all the reasonably remedial hazards of the paraffin heater; and conversely it is possible that the public will unfairly (and to its own detriment) regard such heaters, even when suitable remedial action has been taken, as unduly dangerous.
It is important to draw attention to the fact that what we are doing now is designed to do away with what has been a major hazard in causing fires during the last few years.
The importance to the public of this matter is quite unimaginable. There are many millions of oil heaters in use, and they are of very great value to people generally. We cannot avoid oil heaters being used, since they are cheap to run and, in many cases, the only means of heating, particularly in a country area where no other suitable method is available.
This is a very important aspect of the matter, and I hope that no local authority will imagine that it can undertake the testing itself. This is a highly technical matter, and a considerable number of members of the Home Safety Group have visited various laboratories to see tests carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson) and myself this week went to one of these laboratories, Aladdin at Greenford, to see where, under suitable testing conditions, a very highly satisfactory degree of safety can be achieved. This is not the case in every laboratory run by a manufacturer or local authority. It is important that we should encourage local authorities to support my hon. Friend's proposal so that testing is carried out only in approved laboratories.

Mr. A. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is right in suggesting that testing should be carried out by specialist bodies. I am also sure that most local authorities would make it their business to go to a body which specialises in this type of testing.
This proposal, however, places another burden on local authorities. Possibly this is not directly germane to the proposed new Clause, but it has a bearing.


It is true that it is not a big task. A local authority will only have to get the heater from the manufacturer, retailer or wholesaler when it thinks that a test is required and take it to the testing authority. In adding extra duties to local authorities, it should be remembered that they are already very much burdened with tasks placed upon them by Parliament.
It is within my knowledge that in some of the big cities, certainly in the Metropolitan area of London, it is not possible for a local authority to recruit the necessary number of public health inspectors. Many of them are below their standard strength of health inspectors because they are not available to do the necessary work. We should bear that in mind and I hope that the appropriate Department of the Government— it would not be the Home Office in this case—will take note that, when we place extra duties on local authorities, we should help them to recruit the necessary officers to carry out the work that we give them to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Dr. D. Johnson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 5, at the end to insert:
as indicated by a suitable marking to be prescribed by the regulations".

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it would be convenient if, with this Amendment, could be taken the Amendment to leave out lines 9 to 37.

Dr. Johnson: Thank you, Sir William.
I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) if I appear to be the only hon. Member out of line with the Bill. Perhaps he has a certain fellow feeling, even though it is his Bill. I realise the difficulty of time and that we want to get the Bill through. I shall, therefore, endeavour to be as brief as my Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to restrict further the operations of local authorities and, instead of having the power to test, merely to inspect to see whether heaters are properly marked in the manner indicated by my hon. Friend's first new Clause. The Amendment is the result of fears expressed to me by

various quarters, principally manufacturers. These fears have, to some extent, been allayed by my hon. Friend's remarks, so that I do not intend to press the Amendment. None the less, I hope that my hon. Friend will be definite in allaying these fears. It is proposed to give fresh powers to local authorities, and we cannot visualise how they will be operated.
I hope that I shall not be too much out of order if I remind my hon. Friend of some of his remarks on the Finance Bill with regard to the matter of another £50 million on the rates this year. During discussion of the Finance Bill, we had the noble and virtuous Dr. Jekyll of our national economy watching for unnecessary local authority expenditure. I am hoping that today I do not detect another personality creeping out, a wicked Mr. Hyde, who has tendencies in the opposite direction.
I am bound to visualise the effect of this and the possible operation of Parkinson's Law on a Measure of this kind and the fear that we may get oil heater enforcement officers surrounded by appropriate new departments in town balls, and that sort of thing. I hope, that this is merely a creature of my own perfervid imagination. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will give assurances that in the operation of his Bill there will be no loopholes for that kind of thing to develop.
Quite apart from expanse and interference with citizens' rights, it is essential from the manufacturer's viewpoint to have only two or three centralised testing places. A manufacturer cannot construct and operate his establishment and his works if an oil heater is to have one standard in say, Burnley, and another, perhaps, in Bodmin. We must have centralised standards that are fair to manufacturers. We had a similar kind of difficulty in the world of book publishing. A book which might be all right in Burnley could, perhaps, be con-sidered to be obscene in Bodmin. That kind of danger will arise if the testing is spread too widely.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will have these question very much in mind before, finally, his Bill passes into law. I hope he realises the possibility


of such dangers in this kind of legislation and that in these matters of home safety and safety for consumers, what we basically have to do is to teach people to be sensible and avoid constructing a large bureaucratic machine merely for the purpose of keeping people safe in their homes.

Mr. Nabarro: I reply shortly to the two valuable points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. J. Johnson). Subsection (1, b) of the new Clause which has been added to the Bill this afternoon contains stringent requirements in regard to the affixing of labels for the length of life of the appliances. The major reason for the addition of the Clause was to give emphasis to the labelling requirements.
I am entirely with my hon. Friend in wishing to avoid unnecessary expense to local authorities or to manufacturers or others concerned with the distribution and sale of oil heaters and appliances. I foresee—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does, too— that the number of laboratories approved for testing purposes will be very small —the British Standards Institution laboratory in Hertfordshire, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and two or three other major local authority laboratories. With those few words of reassurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Vosper: Enforcement, of course, is a matter of real difficulty, to which the Home Office has given much consideration. In many ways it would be nice if inspection enforcement could be done at the point of production, but that would be difficult to achieve because there is no one, really, to do the inspecting.
Originally in the Bill, my hon. Friend gave this power to the local authorities. The reason for amending it is that many local authorities, as all hon. Members have said, may not be able to carry out the testing part of the operation. Therefore, power is given to the local authority to choose a heater and have it tested in an approved laboratory. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) is worried about the burden put on local authorities, while my hon. Friend the

Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) is worried about giving them too much power.
However, I think that we can all agree that because of what will happen, which will be that the manufacturer will have the heater tested in an approved laboratory, and will put a seal on it, with a kite mark, the local authority will be able, on inspection, to see if it is an approved heater and will be able to check whether it has already been tested in an approved laboratory. Therefore, on rare occasions only will it need itself to purchase heaters and have them tested. Thus the power about which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle is a little apprehensive is only a residual power, and will be used, I think, on exceptional occasions only.
I think that this is probably the right approach to the matter. The local authorities have had only a few days to examine the proposal, and it is only fair that they should have further opportunity. We may want to come back to this on Report.

Dr. Johnson: In view of the ample reassurance given me by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clauses 1 and 2 disagreed to.

Clause 3.—(OFFENCES.)

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, after " under " to insert:
section (Prohibition of sale, &amp;c, of oil heaters or component parts not complying with regulations) of ".
I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee if my following Amendment were considered with this one.
The maximum penalty of £100 in subsection (1) is appropriate to the offence of selling an oil heater which does not comply with safety regulations but is considered excessive for the rather minor offence, or relatively minor offence, of obstructing an inspector in the pursuit of his duties of inspecting appliances under the new Clause. The effect of these two Amendments taken together is, therefore, to provide a maximum penalty of £100 under subsection (1) of this Clause 3 and to


provide a separate maximum penalty of £20 for the latter offence to which I have referred.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 19, at end insert:
and a person guilty of an offence under section (Inspection and testing of oil heaters and component parts) of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds ".—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 disagreed to.

Clause 6.—(EXERCISE OF POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS, OR AN ORDER UNDER S. 8.)

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, after "instrument" to insert " containing regulations ".
This is a purely technical Amendment. It is proper that Statutory Instruments containing regulations under the Bill should be subject to negative Resolution procedure, but it would be inappropriate, and not in accordance with practice, to apply this procedure to an order under Clause 8 (2) appointing the day on which the Bill is to come into operation. The effect of the Amendment is to exclude such an order from the operation of Clause 6 (2).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from "1932" to "and" in line 30 and to insert:
as amended by the Hire-Purchase Act, 1954, applies".
I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this were taken with the Amendment in page 3, line 33, leave out from "under" to "and" in line 34 and insert:
such a contract as aforesaid ".

The Deputy-Chairman: That will be convenient.

Mr. Nabarro: These are drafting Amendments. The point is that, by virtue of the Hire-Purchase Act, 1954, the Hire-Purchase and Small Debt (Scotland) Act,

1932, now applies to contracts up to £300 instead of £20.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 33, leave out from "under" to "and" in line 34 and insert:
such a contract as aforesaid".—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out from " appliance " to the end of line 44 and to add:
suitable for use in a dwelling-house or other residential premises and designed for the heating of space by means of the burning of kerosene within the meaning of Part VI of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, not being an appliance designed for use with a flue for the removal into the open air either directly or by connection with another flue or flues, of gases produced by the burning of kerosene".
The Amendment substitutes a new definition of "oil heater" for that in the Bill. The definition in the Bill was purposely drawn wide to cover a wide variety of oil-burning equipment because it was not certain at that time how we could deal with the numerous and widespread hazards that were arising.
The new definition in the Clause confines the scope of the Bill to domestic oil heaters of a portable kind, namely, those that are not attached to a flue and are therefore called "unflued" heaters. Those present hazards of a kind different from non-portable heaters. If there are hazards arising in connection with flued heaters, boilers and equipment of a fixed kind, it would be appropriate that they should be made the subject of separate legislation.
This new definition will have precisely the effect of confining the Bill to domestic portable oil heaters and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am very glad to support the Amendment, because it is a consolidation of an Amendment which was put down in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J. Harvey) and Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) and myself. What is sought to be done is to let the Bill cover the purposes for which it was intended. As time draws rapidly to a close, I do not propose to go further into the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 41, at end add:
'prescribed' means 'prescribed by regulations under this Act' ".—[Mr. Nabarro.]

In page 3, line 44, at end add:
(2) In this Act any reference to component parts of oil heaters includes a reference to burners and to wicks.—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8. —(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 3, leave out from "on" to "the" in line 4.

In page 4, line 5, at end insert:
or such earlier day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, 27th May, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING OF MOTOR CYCLES AND MOPEDS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [4th March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

3.58 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): When the debate was interrupted on 4th March I was about to conclude my speech. I find myself in much the same position today, more than a month later.
Since I spoke on 4th March we have received from the Central Office of Information the results of the survey to which I then referred. The time now is insufficient for me to elaborate on the results, but I would just say that to some extent they support the conception used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) as the basis for his Bill, namely, that experience in the driving of these machines is likely to be more significant than age. Therefore, I think that there is a case for our considering the Bill in Committee, and I

hope that the House will feel that that is something that we should do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bill).

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTION OF IMPRISONMENT OF CHILDREN BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. A. Brown.]

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: It is quite wrong that at this time of the day we should pass "on the nod" a Bill of such importance. I can only hope that on another occasion—

Mr. Leslie Hale: You wait.

Mr. Doughty: —we shall have an opportunity to discuss this important Measure in some detail. I should not like it to be allowed to go through in a somewhat perfunctory manner—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

Orders of the Day — COTTON INDUSTRY (COMPENSATION FOR REDUNDANCY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I did not hear any objection. May we hear where it came from?

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Objection taken.

Mr. Hale: We have tried to help hon. Members opposite today.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading, Friday, 27th May.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH ARMY (SURPLUS BOOTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharpies.]

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: The Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates on Treasury Control of Expenditure reports that a very knowledgeable person, Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, former permanent head of the Foreign Office, had called for a purge of top civil servants who squander public money. In fact, he asked Chat civil servants who waste public money should be sacked, and he said that many top civil servants are failing to keep a tight hand on the taxpayers' money and should be retired earlier, with revocation of honours granted. That is the view of Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, who should know.
There are many thousands of people in this country who are asking why top civil servants are not penalised when public money is wasted. People want to know, and I want to know, what does happen to them when millions of pounds are thrown away or lost through lack of initiative or care. Are they punished, and if not, why not? I have asked this question of the Prime Minister, and there does not seem to be any record at any time in recent years of any top civil servant being sacked or in any way penalised when money has been spent and it has been proved that much of it has been wasted.
I have raised this sort of subject many times, particularly with the War Department. On this occasion, I am raising the question of the surplus Army boots, on which for two years I have been asking Questions. If I had the time to give all the Answers, they would show that they were complicated Answers, conflicting Answers and above all the whitewashing that has gone on during that time. I want to make it clear that I am not making this charge against the Minister who will answer me, but, nevertheless, he speaks on behalf of the War Department. Primarily, I am talking about the Secretary of State for War, who I would have expected would have come to these debates on occasion, and have said that

mistakes are inevitable, but that, when a mistake has been made, some sort of rebuke is given to the people concerned.
I put my case to show that something should have been done, but that it has not been done. I submit that there are many mistakes about money in Government Departments because it is not the policy to punish those who make mistakes, although, as one knows only too well, in outside industry the penalties which prominent people have to pay when mistakes are made are of some magnitude.
Column 391 of HANSARD of 9th July, 1958, shows that the original cost of boots which had been declared surplus was about £2 million, representing one and a quarter million pairs of boots. Column 1195 of HANSARD of 2nd March, 1960, shows that the surplus had by then been reduced to 1,043,000 pairs sold for £576,000, the original cost being £1,600,000. There, at least, the taxpayer lost more than £1 million. Those are official disclosures and show that it was decided that there should be retained nine and a quarter years' peacetime supply of boots. People who know a lot about this subject say that that was part and parcel of covering up a much bigger surplus of Army boots and that it was unnecessary to have nine and a quarter years' supply.
On 2nd March, 1960, speaking of myself, the Minister said:
… the hon. Gentleman has been told before that more than 1 million pairs became surplus not because of any over-ordering but because of a deliberate decision to reduce mobilisation stocks as the size of the Army was reduced." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1960; Vol. 618. c. 1195.]
Having got that answer, on 13th April, 1960, I asked:
… what was the date on which the decision to reduce the mobilisation stocks of boots was taken which resulted in 1¼ million pairs of Army boots being declared surplus.
The Secretary of State replied:
The reduction was in two stages, decided in April and December, 1956."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 127.]
If I had time, I would give the extracts from the Report of the late Sir Frank Tribe, then the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but I will quote from the later Report, that of the Committee of Public Accounts, published in July, 1958. In doing so, I hope that hon. Members will recollect that the excuse


has been that it was decided to reduce mobilisation stocks. Page 27 of the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts says:
The War Office, in 1955, ordered from the Ministry of Supply 500,000 pairs of boots and 500,000 pairs of half-soles to the estimated total value of £980,000. The order was placed at that time to use up stocks of special leather reserved by the Ministry of Supply… . The quantity ordered was meant to be the smallest order which would keep production open but the War Office thought it was within their needs, not withstanding the fact that the provisioning depôt"—
That is the depôt which should have known—
 had calculated the requirements at only 200,000 pairs of boots.
The War Office ordered 300,000 pairs more than the provisioning depôt thought necessary. Each pair of boots cost the taxpayer £2, and they were sold, on average, for 10s. a pair three or four years later.
The Report continues:
 In April, 1956, there was a reduction in the requirements for reserves and in the following June the depot suggested cancellation of that part of the order, 317,000 pairs of boots and 235,000 pairs half-soles, which had not then been placed to contract. By this time it was known that the original order had been based on a seriously over-estimated figure of requirements, and that there was such an enormous stock of boots and half-soles in hand that there was no longer any prospect of maintaining continuity of production until orders for the new boots could be placed.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer the next point:
The War Office, nevertheless, declined to cancel any part of the order on the ground that continuity of production must be maintained and "—
this is the absurd excuse—
that cancellation would have involved a loss on disposal of the Ministry's stocks of leather.
This is an authoritative Report. Rather than admit that the boots would not be required at that stage in 1956, and rather than dispose of the stocks of leather, even if it meant a loss, it was decided to go on and to make the boots and to make a far bigger loss. The Report concludes:
Your Committee fail to understand why the War Office should have ordered in 1955, when there were no unusually pressing circumstances, a far greater quantity of boots … than was warranted by the provisioning depôt's calculations, particularly as this was done without any attempt to find an explanation of the

difference between the depôt's and their own figure of requirements.
If that had happened in business somebody would have been very severely in trouble.
On 16th July, 1958, I asked about the machinery in the department for invoking disciplinary action, where necessary. I asked
 how often action has been taken, and in what way, since 1st January, 1954, where mistakes have been made in the ordering of supplies which have resulted in a substantial loss of public money.
In his reply the Secretary of State for War said:
Since 1954, improvements have been made in our procedure following reports of the Public Accounts Committee, but no negligence or misdemeanour has come to light which would call for disciplinary action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1958; Vol. 591, c. 1218.]
If disciplinary action has been taken since, it should be recorded, and if no disciplinary action has been taken I believe that it is an encouragement to slackness in the spending of public money.
I expect that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that there was no mistake. I believe that this is the only thing he can do—to bluff it out, as the Minister bluffed it out for a long time. In that case I refer him to Hansard of 10th December, 1958, when, in answering questions, the Secretary of State for War said:
The surplus was, however, larger than it need have been because of the mistakes in administration commented on by the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1958; Vol. 597, c. 341.]
Those mistakes in administration, there recognised, were in the War Office itself. Has anyone suffered for it? If not, it is a disgrace, and it shows civil servants that, unlike people outside, they do not have to be careful about spending public money.
That is not the only aspect with which I should like to deal. When I have asked Questions about this I have been given all sorts of evasive Answers. On 23rd March, 1959, I asked about the age of the boots, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply said:
… these boots were ordered a very long time ago and have been held in stock for a great length of time. It is almost impossible now to say who ordered them, or indeed, I should imagine, what was paid for them."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 902.]


However, I received a letter from the boot manufacturers, and I was assured that it was quite easy to ascertain these details. The details can be ascertained from the boots themselves, because these particulars, such as the manufacturer's name and the year of manufacture of the article, are stamped on the boot. The letter concluded:
In my humble opinion the excuse he offers is very poor indeed.
We come now to the disposal of the boots. It was pointed out that to unload these boots on to the market would be very serious for the heavy boot trade, which was already in a depressed state. Undertakings were given that the boots would be sold abroad, but, to cut a long story short, it was found afterwards that someone who had bought them had sold them to a Dutch merchant, and that the boots came back and were sold in this country.
Questions were asked about what action was being taken against those who had broken their contracts, and it was said that it was not possible in law to take any action of any sort. At long last, on 9th March of this year, action was taken to ensure that if this sort of thing happened in future it would be possible to deal with it in a court of law.
This story describes a shocking state of affairs from beginning to end. Month after month Her Majesty's Government are asked to increase the meagre amount of £200,000 which they grant to the World Refugee Appeal. Time and again people, even on the Conservative side, have been disgusted with the small amount of money given to this great appeal. It is said that the grant is large, but before the Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary comes to the Box I would point out that a much larger sum of money than that granted to the appeal has been spent, and it is that to which we object. When a good scheme is put forward a meagre grant is made, but when it comes to public waste there is no record of anyone who suffers for it.
We believe that this is another classical case. I have not had time to give the complete story, but what I have said embodies the details of a scheme the details of which it has taken us two years to get.

4.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I am content to support my Minister on these matters and to support the Report of the Department with which I am proud to be associated. I ask for no mercy from the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), or from his hon. Friends.
We have heard "Boots—boots—boots —boots—movin' up an' down again" ever since the Comptroller and Auditor General first mentioned the subject in his Report on the Army Appropriation Account for 1956–57. The War Office has apologised for its errors.

Mr. Dodds: To whom?

Mr. Fraser: To the Public Accounts Committee, and in the House we have stated that an error was committed. We have put in order that small section of our house which was affected by the failure to which I will refer later. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford marches on long after the others have given up, and long after matters have been put to right.
He knows that I represent not merely the War Office but the town of Stafford. The War Office is a great consumer of boots, and in its earlier days Stafford was entirely reliant for its trade upon the production of boots and shoes. Stafford once had the honour to be represented in Parliament by no less a man than Sheridan, who once baffled his constituents by saying:
May the whole world tread the trade of Stafford underfoot.
The hon. Member has been almost equally heavy-handed—if not heavy-footed—in the 20 or so Questions he has put down.

Mr. Dodds: Since the hon. Member says that, will he tell me where, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the error has been admitted—and who got into trouble over it?

Mr. Fraser: I shall do so if the hon. Member will allow me to finish my speech.

Mr. Dodds: But the hon. Member has said that it is in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member will see that we admit that there has been a mistake. I welcome this debate as an


opportunity to put the matter in its true proportion. I suggest that its background is a fairly simple one. In 1955 the War Office held about 6 million pairs of boots; today we have run down that stock to 2¼ million pairs. The hon. Member makes two accusations. First, he says that we over-ordered and, secondly, that there was faulty disposal. The confusion in his mind, which has continued throughout his 20 Questions and in his speech today, involves the 1¼ million pairs of boots disposed of and the 157,000 pairs over-ordered. Two absolutely separate questions are involved.
In the case of the 157,000 pairs over-ordered, I admit that the War Office made an error. That error has been admitted in the House of Commons, if the hon. Member will look through the many columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT, relating to the Questions that he has asked. It was also admitted to the Public Accounts Committee and pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General himself. I must disabuse the hon. Member once and for all of this confusion. The great majority of this surplus 1¼ million arose not from over-ordering but from two deliberate policy decisions made in 1956.
He will be aware that when the World War ended we naturally found ourselves with very large stocks of many types of equipment. After the war no firm decision on retention levels was taken until 1953. All such decisions are difficult to arrive at. In 1956, there were two major decisions of policy. The first concerned the size of stocks in a nuclear age, when it would be difficult to mobilise and when the duration of a war would necessarily be short, and the second concerned the size of the Armed Forces. In that year it was decided to reduce the retention level for peace maintenance stocks, including boots, from 10 years to 4¼ years. There was never any question of holding a 9¼ years' stock. A negative limit was imposed, above which, no one could go.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Member deny what is in the Public Accounts Report?

Mr. Fraser: I do not think the hon. Member quite understands what "peace maintenance stocks" means. There was

a total stock of about 6 million pairs of boots in 1955. If the stocks rose above the 10 years' supply point we would start disposing of the boots. The two decisions made were to bring down the peace maintenance stock retention figure from 10 years to 4¼ years and also to reduce the war reserves in anticipation of the run-down of the Army.
These two policy decisions, deliberately taken, led to a surplus of just over 1 million pairs of boots. I would repeat that these were deliberate decisions, planning for the new look which we have since given our Armed Forces. I am sure that the hon. Member would not have wished us to retain National Service so that future generations of young men could wear out more of these stocks of boots.
The comparatively minor figure of 157,000 pairs was due to errors in calculation as between the depot and the War Office—

Mr. Dodds: Who is that?

Mr. Fraser: One of the men concerned is now dead and the other is retired. I am sure that that gives great confidence to the hon. Gentleman, but I would tell him that my right hon. Friend and I stand absolutely responsible for the activities of our officials at the War Office. I said, as he knows from the Questions he asked, that the procedure has been tightened up to prevent a recurrence. I would repeat that the error of 157,000 pairs of boots must be viewed in relation to a planned decline in holdings of from about 6 million pairs in 1955 to 2¼ million pairs today.
The hon. Member also mentioned the question of the disposal of surpluses of half soles. He will be pleased to know that there is no great surplus of half soles. We do not expect there to be more than a few thousand. Obviously, boots go on being repaired long after they are issued and we do not think that we are faced with any problem here at all.
I now turn to the question of the disposal of these surplus boots. It was not until the latter part of 1958 that the disposals organisation of the Ministry of Supply was given the task of selling the surplus boots—a full review of holdings had been going on at the depôt in question in 1957 and 1958 to ensure that we kept the best of our stocks and also to


find customers at non-disposal prices for as many boots as possible. The total for disposal was 1¼ million pairs.
We succeeded, through this delay, which previously the hon. Member has cavilled at, in disposing of 200,000 pairs of boots within Government Departments, or to other Government agencies, that is to say, some to the Air Ministry, some to the cadet forces and some to the Libyan Government. This apparent delay, in fact, was put to very good use. Just over 1 million pairs then remained for disposal and we decided, after consultation with the trade and other Government Departments that, to avoid the danger of unemployment in the manufacturing industry these should not be sold on the home market.
As the hon. Member is aware, there was, unfortunately, the breach of agreement to the extent of 43,000 pairs of boots by a Dutch firm. That is a matter which we think we have put right, as my right hon. Friend explained in answer to a Question by the hon. Gentleman on 9th March, and we have now tightened up our contracts. As a result of these deliberate steps to keep the sales in general overseas, we have, of course, received a lower price than we would otherwise have expected. I hope that the hon. Member will agree that this was a small price to pay for safeguarding as far as possible capacity and employment in the heavy boot industry which, as he knows, is a small industry producing no more than about 4 million pairs of boots per annum.
To sum up, the vast bulk of the surplus of 1¼ million pairs of boots referred to by the hon. Member is merely one facet of the many problems encountered in running down from a conscript Army to an all-Regular force. An error resulting in an avoidable surplus of only 157,000 pairs of boots was made;

a foreign firm defaulted on a contract agreement and sold 43,000 pairs of boots in the home market. These are matters of detail.
The main fact remains that over the last few years we have been engaged in the massive task of running down a large conscript Army to a small all-Regular force, with all the effects this must inevitably have on our store holdings. In general, I think that we can be reasonably proud of what we have done, of the way in which we have closed our depôts, run down our stocks of uniforms and equipment, including our stocks of boots from 6 million to just over 2¼ million pairs. I think that we have nothing of which to be ashamed. We have put our house in order. The men whom the hon. Gentleman would pursue are protected not merely by myself, but by the general efficiency and service which our Ministry renders to the public.
I started with a quotation from Kipling, and I will end with another quotation, as a word of advice perhaps to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford.

Mr. Dodds: The hon. Gentleman will have to do better than that.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member is undoubtedly well aware of this work of the poet. May I remind him of the other famous lines from the poem "Boots" by Kipling:
Try—try—try—try—to think o' something different—
Oh—my—God—keep—me from goin' lunatic!

Mr. Dodds: If the hon. Gentleman would only stick to facts, instead of quoting poetry, he might have done better.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.